The URL can be used to link to this page

01/14/1987 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 14, 1987 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND MINUTES II. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS A. Appointments B. Chairmanship C. MASAC Membership III. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Draft Noise Budget Public Hearing IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor V. NEW BUSINESS VI. DISTRIBUTION A. Harrison Prophecy Fulfilled - Request for Concorde Operation B. New Controllers Union Forms C. MASAC Membership and Bylaws VII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BAKER AND ALL AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: JANUARY 9, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR JANUARY 14, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Conference Rooms A and B. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Wednesday. I. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee meeting of December 10, 1986 is enclosed on pages / ° v� for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. II. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS A. Appointments - The City Council will appoint members for expiring terms for all advisory commissions and committees on Tuesday, January 20. The Airport Noise Committee has three members whose terms are up and who are considered for reappointment. They are Joe Harrison, Otto Leitner and Dustin Mirick. All three have indicated their desire for reappointment and, to date, no additional applications have been received. B. Chairmanship - Unlike some commissions, the Chairman of the Aiport Noise Committee is appointed by the City Council from among the members of the Committee. For several years, Chairman Tom Baker has served the Committee in this capacity. It would be appropriate for the Committee to determine if Mr. Baker wishes to continue in this capacity. C. MASAC Membership - The terms of Tom Baker and Dustin Mirick as MASAC member and alternate respectively are up in 1987. It would be appropriate to determine if these individuals wish to be considered for reappointment in this capacity. III. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Draft Noise Budget Public Hearing - Enclosed on page � you will find a copy of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune article concerning the public hearing process for the Draft Noise Budget. The public hearing itself will occur on January 28 at the MAC offices in Minneapolis. Written comments will be accepted through February 6. In addition to the public hearing, informational meetings are planned for January 21 at Pilot Knob Elementary School and January 22 in Minneapolis and Richfield. Enclosed on pages `/ -9 / is a copy of the public hearing notice, discussion topics, the draft ordinance and the report of the Noise Budget Working Group. Staff will be reviewing these issues in advance of the public hearing and will be prepared to incorporate committee input into these citie's response. Staff is expressing caution about discussion issue number 4 found on page five, regarding the impact of the Runway 4/22 extension on "distributional equity." As you know, the environmental impact statement on the Runway 4/22 extension has yet to be released and that public hearing process is not underway. For the MAC to suggest that this be tied to another issue without benefit of full information on it seems inappropriate. The Eagan Airport Noise Committee has already expressed concern that the same qualities of the runway extension that allow it to increase the preferential runway system capacity by 20 - 30 operations per hour may well result in the capacity of the airport itself being increased by 20 - 30 operations per hour. This public informational meeting will be a good opportunity for Committee members to share information with the airport about these issues. It would be worthwhile to encourage your neighbors to attend as well. Staff has contacted the local press about publicizing this event. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend staff direction and preparation for the City's response to the noise budget draft. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor 1. MASAC Presentation - Enclosed in your packet on page qi you will find a letter formally requesting the City's presentation concerning the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor at the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. As was directed at the December 10, 1986 Airport Noise Committee meeting, the City approached the city of Mendota Heights to attempt to address this issue in a concerted manner. Enclosed on pages T� �02 please find a copy of the staff letter to City Administrator Frazell of Mendota Heights pertinent to this issue. Subsequent to their meeting, the city of Mendota Heights directed its staff to work directly with the City of Eagan in approaching this issue jointly. Mendota Heights also asked that the presentations be postponed to March to allow more time for preparation has received information that the presentations have been postponed to the April MASAC meeting and staff will be prepared to address these issues in that time frame. Also at committee direction, staff requested of MASAC Chairman Walter Rockenstein, in the letter on pages 617�SS that the agencies be asked to present their positions first and that the cities be afforded an opportunity subsequent to those presentations. Staff has received information from MASAC Chairman Rockenstein that he intends to have the Metropolitan Airports Commission present first followed by the cities and finally by the FAA. His reason is that he believes that the cities are asking the FAA to do something different than their current procedure. Staff is taking the position that we are merely attempting to ascertain how the generally accepted procedure was changed and staff intends to reassert the need for the agencies to present their positions first. In addition, on pages`Z� you will find letters to Jeff Hamiel and Nigel Finney pertaining to background information for the meeting. It has come to staff attention that the airport has requested a copy of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan from the Metropolitan Council. Clearly, the airport intends to attempt to make an argument that the City's planning has not taken the airport into account. Staff is amused to say the least by this approach and intends to forward a copy of the pertinent chapters of the Guide Plan to the airport for its review. On pages 6b "T /you will find a memorandum from staff to the City Administrator covering the anticipated time frame and strategy for this presentation. With the meeting's postponement, the time frame will of course expand. Within the outline provided, staff intends to stress that the public process which should control in this issue are the Metropolitan Council - Metropolitan Airports Commission meetings which occurred in 1980 and 1981. These meetings undertook to encourage preventive land use and corrective long term planning where incompatible uses were present. No official action has been taken since MC -MAC undertook its process. Other elements of the argument are outlined. The issue has also been addressed in the local press. A copy of a St. Paul Pioneer Press article by Tom Koetting is found on page (off. City staff will encourage press attention to this matter in the future. In addition, staff intends to undertake the following tasks. Staff will encourage input from Chauncey Case from the Metropolitan Council regarding the assumptions which go into the Metropolitan Council land use contours and the MC -MAC process. Staff will also encourage input from Dave Kelso of the MPCA who has been involved in noise abatement issues for several years. Staff continues to pursue a review of the differential contours being prepared by Howard Needles et al as part of the Part 150 Study. John Voss is also preparing some overlays of the Metropolitan Council planning contours on the northern Dakota County communities. Finally, staff intends to approach Northwest Airlines to ascertain its position and encourage, if not its support, at least a neutral position as the issue is brought before MASAC. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide additional direction to staff and input on the presentation. 2. Legislative Correspondence Enclosed on pages (3_77you will find copies of correspondence from and to Representative Bill Frenzel and to Representative Art Seaberg pertinent to corridor issues. Please review these items in anticipation of providing feedback and comment. V. NEW BUSINESS VI. DISTRIBUTION A. Request for Concorde Operation Enclosed on page you will find a copy of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune article pertinent to a request for operation of the Concorde for a tourism promotion. It appears that the MAC will refuse to allow this operation because of the precedent it would set, but staff has to admit that Joe Harrison was right when he told us it was only a matter of time before someone attempted to fly the Concorde into Minneapolis /St. Paul Airport. B. New Controllers Union Forms - Enclosed on page 7q you will find a Minneapolis Star and Tribune article pertinent to the new Air Traffic Controllers Union. The controllers have been without a union since 1981 when the Patco strike resulted in President Reagan firing all striking controllers. C. MASAC Membership and Bylaws - Enclosed on pages <Q 97you will find copies of a MASAC membership list and bylaws for your review. Staff intends to distribue an informational packet to MASAC members in advance of the corridor presentation meeting and contact members for purposes of encouraging support. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Committee will adjourn at or about 9:00 p.m. Ad inistrative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Attorney Hauge Enclosures JDH /jeh MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTE Eagan, Minnesota December 10, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Wednesday, December 10, 1986, at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Tom Baker, Dustin Mirick, and Joe Harrison. Absent were Otto Leitner, Carolyn Braun, Carol Dozois and John Gustin. Also present was Administrative Assistant Jon Hohenstein. MINUTES Chairman Baker indicated that the Committee was technically without a quorum, but as the Committee is advisory in nature and without specific bylaws, it would transact business while duly noting those absent. Upon motion by Harrison, seconded by Mirick, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the November 12, 1986 meeting were approved. FAR PART 150 STUDY Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported on correspondence with the Airport and its consultant, Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff, regarding the Part 150 Study. He indicated that the City Council took action to recommend for further study, three corrective elements suggested by the consultant. These were sound insulation, acquisition of developed property, and a purchase assurance program. He further indicated that the City Council debated this issue at length and directed City staff to reiterate that corrective elements were to be considered secondary to operations which would best utilize the land uses in place. EAGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS DEPARTURE CORRIDOR Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed correspondence regarding the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor. He indicated that representatives of the Airport have taken the position that runway heading is an outer boundary of operations on the south side of the Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor and that any operational standards north of that were internal efforts to stay north of that line. He further indicated that Doug Powers, local FAA tower chief, has chosen to forward the issue to the regional FAA office for consideration due to an increase made by our Congressman, Representative Bill Frenzel. He indicated that the FAA has a policy that congressional increase be responded to through the regional office. Mirick reported that MASAC chairman Walter Rockenstein has set the matter of the Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor on the MASAC agenda for January 27, 1987. He stated further that the interested cities and agencies will be given an opportunity to speak on the matter that evening and that MASAC will then take a position on the corridor issue. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that the Committee has often asked whether a forum exists for making a case for the corridor and that this appears to be such a forum. After discussion, the Committee gave direction to staff for the preparation of this presentation. It was suggested that the Mayor and or City Councilmembers, the City Administrator, Planning Consultant John Voss, all Airport Noise Committee members and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein be present at the MASAC meeting. The basic argument is that the left turn procedure was presented as an offer in exchange for the City of Eagan's return to MASAC in the early 70's. By accepting this offer, the City sealed an agreement with the Airport which remains essentially unchanged. Mirick suggested that the information be forwarded to all MASAC members at least one week before the meeting and that everyone be phoned to respond to questions and encourage support. It was further suggested that the presentation develop a two stage argument. The first element would be that aircraft be given headings toward the middle of the corridor whenever safety separations are not required. The second element regards those times at which separation is necessary. At such times, the Committee asserted that it was necessary to compare Eagan and Mendota Heights on equal terms as if the two cities were one. It suggested that that being the case, the worst of the impact of the corridor's use should be toward its middle and that an attempt should be made to equalize the impacts at either side. The Committee indicated that the procedure enjoyed a long history of protecting residents on both sides of the corridor from disproportionate levels of noise and that there has been no official MAC action to change the procedure. Finally, it was suggested that an official request be made that the agencies present their case first and the cities be allowed to follow them. Mirick indicated that government protocol dictates that agencies present first in presentations of this kind. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 9:23 p.m. JDH Dated Secretary ov- - � mL 0 d • j ° � c a) E o 0 ,c3 C O E C 0 Z CA .0 aG 0,_ _ • t y U �.. u C Vi • ° C 0 V m C , o r o 4 o Z a i4 N N c ° co u) O a s • • -, L. 0. °. ° .. • L- N O - O - v c a) c E ' 4 .. E �- 9. O 0 * I,,° .oa E O °C a) d of O - 0 Cr i Co v •'" ca e . 0 M y >. ti U� a 6 c i ... \--. � o r n vo . 0 , n „ , a e aE EE< • .r 0 .c 0 a) 0 . a) ti u . .. O 00 - E O a) • 00 C u- o 0 0 o v 0 0 o '0 o y a o N .° C 6) : . ° 01 m c E . o p . .0 0 C c 0 cu 11) .:'. N ..-• 00 00 ° -• % ° >,... 0 •• a 9 .0 0 W °...,j'> 34E .. . .0 E 0 . O c•CC a) 0 0 0 H 0 P• • 6. >, b TA N 6) r r. . 1 6i u iq a/ 0. i.," .x° � e l?, =.. 0 . o_ o al) . u u E .„,.._.,_ ...,..........._._ E 0 o 0 ' o 4 - .c .0 0 - : q°'S° o E '0 c = u ° co M o 00 a • • -. o ai 0 . o f ■NMI •0d E$.4.9 Ea u (40u O I- a) > m A .T. 1 0 E E 3 S. 0 c .0 1. .0 4) 0 o o.:. a,oN�.yv�vc r2 6) v�. c V a in c E 0 60 0 2 0 - d o ° `� v °.0 - a o• •^• c O e.. Q. C 2; 0 2,,, � � E o '/ { � � 3 ° a)c0.000 10 Eo H V id c . ° o v - u , gy p - . b . 0 V .0 0 CO c V 0 V >' v O V 0 >..3. .. 0 - O c d ° ' . 0 O 0 ,.0 0o. —CC ' D., yy � 0 ..s• 0° y P.. v�'oo a)a) .. v, u C C N c 0 v 40 a 00 4: .r N. 4y C O ° �- 13� a c . 5 .0 V 00 ) 4) a 4 iE � .i..c C >vE o . =W I• E C - CD �, 00oE ° ci ° 0 °co.c. N • u" a . 4a o L. ° V C ~ co 4 A V , ., u - u 03 C O c 00 4 4., v0) C y CO ` oot ° c 03 2 0 4'C O; E 4 a. 00 tp Eu2 ° 0 T0) .Ehmy0 2 u O . 13 ° ° a L " y o 0 E U 0 OI.0 C ;, 17) - E- 3;10 0 = �y a) .... - c 4 ' E CO V `3a r - - O ''a) 9 u ' z ° > E C C C •00v . O ° °a : o ti v 0 - V a) O - C - - d 0 ir) V 0o> y u a a5 E � I": .. : c ::oo2 . H 2 �3 a...) s. 00 H _ N g o � a c )1 > 3 V 0 .E ` .. - 2. 0 . 00 '.� 1 � E o 3 a ° w ^mvc " 0a u v- °°9o'° .r�2acln O of 0 0 �2 . 3 ° ovi u _ . vi > 0 C . V) .. 6) a) O O S a) < „Dv Q $ 2 ' < as a,. 1 ApV�u C = . c 0 - 4 _ 0A • .. o m o E -.0 8.- u m .n 4Eo `c4 co u) » u <4. - 2 E w a: 4 ,t 3 2 3 12n 1 • MIME OF PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT NOISE BUDGET ORDINANCE The Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (Commission) will conduct a Public Hearing in January 1987, as detailed below, to receive comment from all interested persons concerning a Draft Noise Budget Ordinance that has been proposed for consideration by the Commission: Wednesday, January 28, 1987 MAC General Offices 6040 -28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 The public hearing shall be held from 1 :00 P.M. - 5 :30 P.M. and from 7 :00 P.M. - 11:00 P.M. Additional sessions will be scheduled and promptly announced if it appears that all persons interested in being heard in person cannot be adequately heard during the time allotted for the two sessions announced above. The Commission's Operations and Environmental Committee shall serve as the Hearing Officer. A certified stenographer will be present to record all pro- ceedings and to prepare a transcript for later consideration by the Commission. - Subject Matter of Hearings At the January 1987 Public Hearing the Commission will receive oral testi- mony and /or written testimony or statements concerning the Draft Noise Budget Ordinance, as more fully described in the background materials listed below, that has been drafted by the Noise Budget Working Group established by the Commission. As more fully detailed in the background materials for the Public Hearing, the purpose of the Ordinance would be to reduce or cap the amount of aircraft noise exposure experienced in communities close to the MSP Airport. To further focus public comment at the Public Hearing, the Commission has identified four primary issues on which it would request community, industry and government agency views. These are set forth in the Attachment to this Notice of Public Hearing. - Background Reading Materials for Public Hearing A copy of all background reading materials is included with this Notice of Public Hearing, has been mailed to all known interested parties, and is available for public inspection in the Commission's General Offices. Individual copies will also be mailed upon request to any person. . The background documents are: 1. Draft Noise Budget Ordinance and Technical Appendix; 2. Summary of Provisions of Draft Noise Budget Ordinance; • - 2 - 3. Report of Noise Budget Working Group (December 1986) - Public Information Meetings To assure that those wishing to comment on the Draft Noise Budget Ordinance have adequate opportunity to have any technical questions answered well in advance of the Public Hearing sessions, the Commission's staff and technical consultants will be available to answer those questions at three Public Information Meetings, to be held as follows: 7 :30 P.M. - 10 :00 P.M. Wednesday evening, January 21, 1987 Pilot Knob Elementary School 1436 Lone Oak Road Eagan, MN 7 :00 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. Thursday evening, January 22, 1987 Nokomis Community Center 2401 East Minnehaha Parkway Minneapolis, MN 7 :00 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. Thursday evening, January 22, 1987 Richfield Community Center Corner of 70th and Nicollet Richfield, MN In addition to the above Public Information Meetings, the Commission's staff and technical consultants will be available to provide briefings to local officials, any airlines serving or interested in serving the MSP Airport and State and Federal officials (FAA Regional and Headquarters offices, U.S. Department of Transportation) so that all interested parties can be fully informed concerning the draft Ordinance in advance of the public hearing. - Procedures for Participating in Public Hearing Persons desiring to make oral statements and presentations are requested to advise the Commission's staff in advance to assist in the scheduling of par- ticipants by calling Ms. Judith Smith at (612) 726 -1892 during business hours. All written submissions shall be presented to the Chair at the hearing or filed with the Commission at its General Offices, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450, not later than Friday, February 6, 1987. The Commission will maintain a register of written submissions at its General Offices and all such submissions will be available for public inspection imme- diately upon receipt. Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 -28th Avenue South 1/7/87 Minneapolis, MN 55450 • -3- ISSUES INVOLVING DRAFT NOISE BUDGET ORDINANCE CN WHICH PUBLIC COMMENT IS REQUESTED AT JANUARY 1987 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Should MAC set an absolute ceiling on total noise that can be produced by airline aircraft serving the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport (MSP)? DISCUSSION: No major airport in the United States has an absolute ceiling on airline aircraft noise, such as has been proposed for bSP as part of the Noise Budget Draft Ordinance. All other major U.S. commercial airports that impose restrictions on airport use to minimize the aircraft noise exposure of their citizens allow some future increases in total noise energy by airlines in addition to encouraging substitution of quieter aircraft ( "Stage 3 aircraft ") for noisier aircraft ( "Stage 2 aircraft "). The Commission's comprehensive 27 -part noise abatement program submitted to the Governor in April 1986 as well as the Report of the Noise Budget Working Group (December 1986) make a convincing case that the levels of noise exposure suffered by many residents of the MSP metropolitan area are unacceptable and must be reduced. MAC is interested in receiving public cent particularly on the public policy and legal considerations that commentators feel it should consider in determining whether growth in air commerce at NSP should be constrained through a noise budget mechanism. 2. Is the particular 'noise energy' restriction recanmoded by the Working Group an appropriate mechanism for capping the amount of aircraft noise that can be created by airline aircraft serving MSP and for allocating the permissible amount of aircraft noise energy equitably to individual air carriers? DISCUSSION: The Working Group recommended a "noise energy" restriction from some 16 alternative noise budget mechanisms. The Commission is interested in public comment on the recommnded noise budget mechanism, the methodology for measuring noise energy, and whether the draft ordinance allocates "noise energy" to individual airlines fairly and without unjust discrimination. 3. a. Should any initial ceiling on future airline aircraft noise that is set as part of a Noise Budget Ordinance include: (1) an 18% redaction in noise energy from August 1986 levels, as recammended by a majority of the Noise Budget Working Group; or (2) an 11% reduction in noise energy from August 1986 levels, as recommended by a minority of the Noise Budget Working Group; or (3) the current airline aircraft noise level at time of adoption of the Ordinance (no reduction in current noise levels but no future increases thereafter) ; or (4) a more substantial cutback in noise energy than r ? 7 - 4 - b. What impacts upon air commerce appear to be the likely effect of the proposed noise budget ordinance? DISCUSSION: Under its enabling legislation MAC Waist promote air navigation and air commerce while assuring the residents of the 'Fain Cities metropolitan area the minimum environmental impact from aircraft operations. MAC is interested in the views of all commentators on the proposed level of noise energy reduction, both in terms of its potential benefits to communities adja- cent to the Airport and its likely impacts upon air service at MSP and the indi- viduals and businesses that rely upon air commerce. - Potential Environmental Improvement The background documents indicate that the Noise Budget Working Group set its proposed ceiling on future levels of airline aircraft noise energy to equal averaged actual noise energy levels produced during all of 1984 (majority) or during the "open window season of 1984" (minority). The Working Group agreed that a return to 1984 noise levels would, based upon community sensitivity surveys that were undertaken and its study of the pattern of increasing noise complaints over a number of years, result in a meaningful and measurable improvement in the current environment for many area residents. Environmental benefits may also be measured in terms of "before and after" comparisons of noise contours, numbers of people exposed to threshold levels of cumulative noise energy, and numbers of minutes per day that various loca- tions in the metropolitan area would be impacted by higher than threshhold noise levels. Thus, the Commission solicits the views of all members of the public on how it should measure improvement in the quality of the environment around the Airport and whether the proposed restriction or other variations will provide meaningful relief to area residents. - Potential Imnpacts Upon Air Commerce As the background documents note, the 18% reduction in noise energy recom- mended by the Noise Budget Working Group as a ceiling for all aircraft noise to be produced by the airlines could involve a potential reduction of 56 take- off /landing cycles per day of a typical airline aircraft (B- 727 -200) at MSP as compared with August 1986 activity levels. That level of reduction was recommended to provide meaningful relief to communities near the airport that are currently experiencing unacceptable levels of noise. In contrast, the Commission's staff and two other members of the Working Group recommended in their minority views that the 18% reduction was too deep, would be difficult if not impossible for some airlines to meet and would lessen needed economic development in the metropolitan area. They recommended an 11% reduction in noise energy from August 1986 levels. a potential reduction of 41 take -off /landing cycles per day of B -727 -200 aircraft as compared with August 1986 activity levels. • l -5- Comparative numbers of airline aircraft operations under both options are compared in the Summary of Noise Budget Draft Ordinance, one of the available background documents. A third option available to the Commission would be to freeze noise energy as of the date of its action on the Noise Budget Ordinance (scheduled for April 1987) or some other similar date that would not involve cutbacks in noise energy from the then- current activity levels of the airlines. The detailed impact of this third option is unknown since the Commission doesn't yet have the Spring 1987 schedules of any airline, and particularly because there is no helpful historical data from Spring 1986 for the newly com- bined Northwest- Republic. Because the proposed noise budget mechanism deals directly with "noise energy" as opposed to aircraft operations, it is difficult to predict precisely the impact of a particular "noise energy" restriction on air service. Ability to substitute quieter Stage III aircraft for existing Stage II aircraft is a function of numerous economic and operational factors, such as an air carrier's existing fleet mix, route structure, and long lead time for purchasing new aircraft. MAC is interested in determining in more detail the potential effect of the noise budget ordinance on air carrier activity at MSP and whether the ordinance is likely to result in replacement of noisier Stage II aircraft with quieter Stage III aircraft, as opposed to a reduction in available air service. In the event a reduction in air service appears likely, the Commission requests the views of commentators on the potential impact of such a reduction in air service on the individuals and businesses which use the Airport. Finally, the Commission is interested in the views of all commentators as to whether the potential impacts upon air transportation and air commerce appear excessive in light of the potential noise attenuation benefits. 4. Although the Noise Budget Working Group set "distributional equity' of noise impacts throughout the metropolitan area as a co -equal objective with overall noise reduction, the proposed Noise Budget Ordinance will not achieve that objective. Should the Commission now press its Runway 4/22 Extension Project or other measures to increase use of the Preferential Runway System (PRS) and thus create "distributional equity" or wait until 1988, as the Working Group majority recommended, to consider other options at that time? DISCUSSION: The Working Group recognized that the sizable increase in numbers of aircraft operations at the airport since airline deregulation has precluded FAA's Air Traffic Control Tower personnel from often using the air- port's Preferential Runway System (PRS) that had been so successful in earlier years in preventing unacceptable concentrations of aircraft noise. The Working Group adopted a goal to increase daytime (6:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M.) use of the PRS to an annual average of five to six hours per day so as to cause "distributional equity" of noise impacts within the metropolitan area. It is clear, however, from the Working Group's Report that the draft Noise Budget Ordinance proposed for Commission action will not accomplish that objec- O -6- tive. Further, the Working Group failed to specifically endorse any alter- native proposal to achieve the objective of greater PRS use but urged that the Commission annually assess progress made to that end in implementing the Noise Budget Ordinance. Supplemental comments by two members of the Working Group urged that the Commission be prepared to take Further action as early as 1988 to achieve greater PRS use. The Commission's staff has maintained in its separate comments in the Working Group's Report that the extension of Runway 4/22 at the airport, as already included by the Commission as part of its comprehensive 27 -part noise abatement program, could increase the capacity of the PRS by 20 -30 operations per hour and would crave substantially toward achievement of distributional equity. The Commission seeks community and industry input as to whether its approval of a Noise Budget Ordinance ought to be conditioned upon simultaneous approval of the proposed runway extension so that the Working Group's objective of distributional equity can be achieved within the foreseeable future. • • DRAFT - 1/7/87 MEMRCPCLITAN AIRPORTS CCIISSION ORDINANCE NO. 68 An Ordinance to promote and conserve the public safety, health. peace, convenience and welfare by imposing a ceiling on the total amount of aircraft noise that air carriers may produce at Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport, as an equitable balance between the needs of air commerce and economic development, and the environmental protection of area residents, and to provide for the progressive lowering of that noise ceiling over time; to provide for the equitable allocation of that total amount of allowable aircraft noise energy among all categories of air carriers in a manner that promotes competition among air carriers and encourages the use by air carriers of quieter aircraft; to require periodic reports from air carriers concerning planned and actual operations; and to prescribe penalties for the violation of this Ordinance. WHEREAS the Metropolitan Airports Commission is obligated under its charter and statutory authority to determine in the public interest the proper balance between the metropolitan area's need for adequate air navigation and transportation services and facilities and the Commission's obligations to protect the residents of the area from adverse environmental impacts as well as protecting itself from legal liability resulting from excessive levels of aircraft noise; and WHEREAS the Commission has, since the advent of jet aircraft, undertaken a continuing series of programs and actions designed to mitigate the noise impacts of air transportation on communities adjacent to the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport ( "Airport "), but the increased airline activity being generated in the deregulated airline industry has caused aircraft noise to be now perceived by area residents as a greater problem than before; and as the noise abatement programs previously developed by the Commission no longer are adequate to mitigate the noise problem, a more comprehensive and aggressive approach is necessary and is now being taken to control aircraft noise impacts; and WHEREAS in January 1986 the Governor's Task Force on Aircraft Noise recommended that the Commission adopt a "noise budget ordinance" for the Airport; thereafter the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council ( "MASAC ") recommended to the Commission a comprehensive program of noise abatement measures for inclusion in the Commission's Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program also including a noise ordinance that would reduce noise energy produced at the Airport and would make "noise allocations" at that reduced level of noise energy available to various airport users; and thereafter the Commission in April 1986 adopted and submitted to the Governor of Minnesota at his request a 27 -point program of noise abatement measures, including an evaluation of the feasibility of such a noise budget ordinance; and WHEREAS the Working Group that studied the feasibility of the noise budget ordinance at the request of the Commission, after comparing a large number of � - 2 - alternative measures against the Working Group's dual objectives of (1) overall noise reduction and (2) more equitable distribution of noise to various com- munities surrounding the Airport, concluded that a noise budget ordinance was feasible and in its Final Report (December 1986) proposed such an ordinance for the Commission's consideration; [and ...] [WHEREAS the Commission, having reviewed the Final Report of the Working Group has concluded that adoption of a noise budget ordinance properly balances the public interest and need for air navigation and transportation with the Commission's potential legal liability and its statutory responsibility to assure the residents of the Minneapolis /St. Paul metropolitan area the minimum environmental iact from air transportation.] NOW, THEREFORE, the Metropolitan Airports Commission does ordain: SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases when used in this Ordinance shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section: 1.1 AIR CARRIER - any entity conducting or proposing to conduct operations at the Airport pursuant to a certificate to conduct air transportation services in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 1371, 1372, 1375, 1386, 1387, and /or 1388, and /or any other applicable provision of law by which such entity may conduct commer- cial air transportation services. Any group of Air Carriers serving the Airport that is subject to more than 50 percent ownership or control by a single entity shall be collectively deemed to be a single Air Carrier for pur- poses of noise allocation under this Ordinance. 1.2 AIRPORT - Minneapolis -Saint Paul International .Airport - Wold- Chamberlain Field, a public airport under the supervision, operation, direction and control of the Commission, and located in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. 1.3 AVERAGE DAILY NOISE ENERGY (ADNE) - The total noise energy expressed in units of E?NdB produced by takeoff and landing cycles of Air Carrier aircraft for an average weekday, during a specified time period and calculated in accordance with the Appendix. . 1.4 COMMISSION - The Metropolitan Airports Commission, sometimes referred to as the Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public cor- poration and agency of the State of Minnesota. Where Commission approval, con- sent or action is required or permitted by this Ordinance, such action may be taken by the Commission's Executive Director except where such delegation is specifically limited. 1.5 COMPLIANCE REPORTING PERIOD - One of seven monthly or multi-monthly time periods used to determine whether an Air Carrier has exceeded its ADNE 7/ -3- allocation, as follows: May, June, July, August, September, October, and November - April. 1.6 EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL MEASURED IN DECIBELS (EPNdB) - A measure of aircraft noise assessment, used for aircraft noise certification in FAA Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36, to approximate human annoyance in response to aircraft flyover noise that is computed from sound pressure levels measured in octave or one -third octave frequency bands with correction factors accounting for the duration of the noise event and for the presence of audible pure tones or discrete frequencies. 1 INCUMBENT AIR CARRIER - An air carrier that is conducting aircraft operations at the Airport at the time it requests an allocation of noise energy from the Commission. 1.8 NEW ENTRANT AIR CARRIER - An air carrier that is not conducting any aircraft operations at the Airport at the time it requests an allocation of noise energy from the Commission. 1.9 TAKEOFF AND LANDING CYCLE - A combination of a takeoff (departure) and a landing (arrival) of an aircraft operated by an Air Carrier at the Airport. 1.10 USE FEE A REF ENTS - Agreements between the Commission and Air Carriers and the military by which both are charged fees for the use of public runways, taxiways, aprons and other public facilities at the Airport to defray in part the cost of development, maintenance and operation thereof. SECTION 2 - LIMITATION ON PRODUCTION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE BY AIR CARRIERS; REDUCED NOISE CEILINGS OVER TIME; ALLOCATIONS OF NOISE ENERGY. 2.1 LIMITATION ON AIRCRAFT NOISE. ENERGY No Air Carrier serving the Airport may conduct aircraft takeoff and landing cycles that produce aircraft noise in excess of the Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) available to the Air Carrier pursuant to this Ordinance. 2.2 REDUCED NOISE CEILINGS OVER TIME (a) The total Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) level that may be produced by takeoff and landing cycles of all Air Carrier aircraft at the Airport as of the date of implementation of this Ordinance shall not exceed 124.46 EPNdB, the amount of noise energy produced by airline aircraft during calendar year 1984. (b) The total ADNE that may be produced by the takeoff and landing cycles of all Air Carrier aircraft at the Airport after June 15, 15, sha aircraft exceed 124.27 EPNdB, the amount of noise energy produced during the first six months of 1984. /,2_ - 4 - 2.3 ALLOCATIONS OF NOISE ENERGY The Commission shall allocate to each Air Carrier serving the Airport during any compliance reporting period an amount of Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. The ADNE level that may be produced by each Air Carrier as of the date of implementation of this Ordinance or thereafter may not exceed the total of its Guaranteed Allocation under section 3.2 or 4.2 and its allocation, if any, based on historical level of service under section 3.3, as increased or decreased by any transfers of noise allocations to or from other Air Carriers pursuant to section 4.6(b). Determinations of ADNE energy levels for representative aircraft and engines will be made by the Commission and uniformly applied in implementing this Ordinance. SECTION 3 - INITIAL ALLOCATION OF NOISE ENERGY AS OF DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE. 3.1 INITIAL ALLOCATIONS (a) Not less than 60 days in advance of the date of implementation of this Ordinance, the Commission shall allocate to each Air Carrier that will serve the Airport on that date an amount of Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) equal to its Guaranteed Allocation under section 3.2 and its allocation based on its historical level of service under section 3.3, as identified in each Air Carrier's initial Request for Allocation of Noise Energy as submitted to the Commission pursuant to section 4.1. (b) In addition, prior to the application of section 3.3 the Commission shall reserve an amount of available ADNE to provide for additional Guaranteed Allocations for potential new entrant Air Carriers that the Commission estima- tes may commence service on or within 180 days following the date of implemen- tation of this Ordinance and for additional Guaranteed Allocations for incumbent Air Carriers. 3.2 GUARANTEED ALLOCATION All Air Carriers operating at the Airport submitting a Request for Allocation of Noise Energy are entitled to a Guaranteed Allocation sufficient to allow the following aircraft takeoff and landing cycles: (a) All international aircraft takeoff and landing cycles conducted pur- suant to a bilateral agreement to which the United States is a party, and where either the takeoff or the landing is at a foreign point, or, for foreign Air Carriers, where a flight segment is a continuation of a flight that begins and ands at a foreign location; and (b) All aircraft takeoff and landing cycles conducted pursuant to the U. S. Department of Transportation's Essential Air Service (EAS) Program or any suc- cessor program authorized by federal law; and /3 -5- (c) As many aircraft takeoff and landing cycles, other than for inter- national operations or EAS operations, as do not exceed 106.56 EPNdB in Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE). 3.3 ALLOCATION BASED ON HISTORICAL LEVEL OF SERVICE Not less than 60 days before the date of implementation of this Ordinance, the Commission shall allocate all ADNE remaining after application of sections 3.1(b) and 3.2 to Air Carriers in proportion to each Air Carrier's historical level of service, based upon the Air Carrier's share of total seats available at the Airport for takeoff and landing cycles of scheduled aircraft during August 1986, excluding takeoff and landing cycles guaranteed under section 3.2.(a) and (b). Market shares will be based upon latest available O.S. Department of Transportation data concerning weighted average seats in airline aircraft (see Table in Appendix). 3.4 TEMPORARY USE OF NOISE ENERGY (a) Any allocation of ADNE under section 3.1(b) that is not required for Guaranteed Allocations under section 3.2 may be made available by the Commission to Air Carriers for temporary use on the same basis as in section 3.3. (b) Temporary use of such noise energy by such Air Carrier will end not more than sixty days after that Air Carrier receives notice from the Commission that the noise energy it is using temporarily is needed for additional Guaranteed Allocations for other Air Carriers. SECTION 4 - REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING, USING AND TRANSFERRING NOISE ALLOCATIONS. 4.1 REQUESTS FOR ALLOCATION OF NOISE ENERGY (a) Each Air Carrier requiring an allocation of ADNE from the Commission shall submit a Request for Allocation of Noise Energy not less than 75 days in advance of the date of implementation of this Ordinance or, if submitted thereafter, of date of an Air Carrier's planned initial operation at the Airport or of any proposed change in the amount of its ADNE allocation. Each Air Carrier shall provide, in addition, a certification that its sche- dule of planned takeoff and landing cycles for the relevant compliance reporting period (or part thereof) will not exceed its requested allocation of ADNE. This submission shall also include sufficient information, in such form as the Commission shall determine, concerning the Air Carrier's proposed average daily numbers of takeoff and landing cycles and types of aircraft to permit the Commission to verify the accuracy of the Air Carrier's certification. 4.2 ASSURED GUARANTEED ALLOCATIONS FOR NEW ENTRANT AIR CARRIERS -6- To promote adequate competition in air service, the Commission shall allo- cate to each Air Carrier desiring to serve the Airport during any compliance reporting period an amount of ADNE equal to its Guaranteed Allocation under section 3.2. 4.3 TIMELY RESPONSE BY COMMISSION The Commission shall respond to any timely Request for Allocation of Noise Energy not later than 60 days before the Air Carrier's plan is scheduled to take effect. 4.4 NO FEES IMPOSED FOR NOISE ALLOCATIONS E as provided in section 5.3, the Commission shall not impose any fees or charges on Air Carriers for allocations of ADNE beyond the charges already included in Use Fee Agreements or in other contractual agreements with Air Carriers, or pursuant to Commission Ordinances as the same may from time to time be amended. 4.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULAR USE OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS Air Carriers allocated noise energy must use those allocations on a regular basis (not less than 65% of permissible aircraft takeoff and landing cycles during each 6O-day period) or be subject to their unused allocations being withdrawn by the Commission for reallocation. 4.6 TRANSetRS OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS (a) Guaranteed Allocations of ADNE under sections 3.2 and 4.2 may not be leased, assigned or otherwise transferred by any kir Carrier. (b) Noise allocations other than Guaranteed Allocations under sections 3.2 and 4.2 may be leased, assigned or otherwise transferred, in whole or in part, by Air Carriers for any lawful consideration. Requests for transfers of noise allocations must indicate the dollar value (actual amount or fair market value of other consideration) placed on the noise allocation transaction by the Air Carrier parties. Transfers of noise allocations between Air Carriers shall became effective when the Commission notifies the Air Carrier parties that it has recorded the transfer. A record of each transfer shall be kept on file at the Commission's offices and shall be made available to the public upon reasonable request. In any enforcement proceeding the Commission's records concerning the amount of noise energy allocated to any Air Carrier shall be controlling. SECTION 5 - WITHDRAWAL AND EXPIRATION OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS. 5.1 WITHDRAWAL OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS FOR CAUSE /5 -7- (a) Noise allocations may be withdrawn by the Commission for insufficient use (section 4.5), for non -use of Guaranteed Allocations or use for other than the purpose for which allocated (sections 3.2 and 4.2), for exceeding its ADNE allocation during any compliance reporting period or for failing to file reports required under this Ordinance in a timely manner. (b) Allocations will not be withdrawn by the Commission until an Air Carrier has had an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that good cause existed (force majeure, work stoppages, equipment changes, filing for protection under the bankruptcy laws, etc.) for its use (or non -use) of its noise allocation in a manner inconsistent with this Ordinance. 5.2 FURTHER WITHDRAWALS OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS If the Commission concludes that total Guaranteed Allocations by all Air Carriers will exceed the ADNE reserved by the Commission under section 3.1.(b), as supplemented by any amounts of noise energy returned to or withdrawn from Air Carriers, and that additional amounts of ADNE are needed for additional Guaranteed Allocations to provide the opportunity for adequate Air Carrier com- petition at the Airport, the Commission shall periodically withdraw noise energy from all Air Carriers in proportion to their then-current ADNE alloca- tions excluding Guaranteed Allocations under sections 3.2 and 4.2. 5.3 EXPIRATION OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS Noise allocations awarded pursuant to this Ordinance shall not expire in advance of January, 1989 when the Commission's long -term Use Fee Agreements with the scheduled Air Carriers will expire. At its discretion, the Commission may extend all noise allocations beyond that date, allow them to expire in January 1989, merge them into new Use Fee Agreements, or allocate them by ordi- nance. In any event, such agreements or ordinance shall be structured to achieve the 124.27 EPNdB level of total ADNE by June 15, 1990. SECTION 6 - COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT. 6.1 REPORTS ON USE OF NOISE ALLOCATION Not more than 10 calendar days after the end of each compliance reporting period, each Air Carrier producing more than 106.56 EPNdB in ADNE during that reporting period, and such other Air Carriers as the Commission may specify, shall submit to the Commission a Report on Use of Noise Allocation setting forth any variances between its schedule of planned takeoff and landing cycles as set forth in its approved Request for Allocation of Noise Energy and the aircraft takeoff and landing cycles actually conducted during the compliance reporting period just ended, and the justification for any such variances. An Air Carrier's compliance report shall be considered an admission in any determination as to whether the Ordinance has been violated. To the extent that an Air Carrier does not document to the satisfaction of the Commission that -8- any noise energy generated in excess of its ADNE allocation occurred as a resul' of required aircraft diversions due to weather. aircraft mechanical difficulties. or other reasons beyond the control of the Air Carrier, that Air Carrier may be held to be in violation of this Ordinance. If a violation is determined to have occurred, the Air Carrier shall be subject to penalties being assessed and sanc- tions imposed. 6.2 MONITORING OF AIR CARRIER COMPLIANCE The Commission shall monitor each Air Carrier's compliance with its noise allocation on an ongoing basis. Any Air Carrier may be required to document at any time whether its pattern of aircraft operations to date within a compliance reporting period will result in its exceeding its ADNE allocation for that reporting period unless interim changes in its existing pattern of takeoff and landing cycles are made. SECTION 7 - PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS. 7.1 MISDEMEANOR Any person (including a corporation, company, firm, partnership, or a joint stock association) violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or by fine of not more than seven hundred ($700.00) dollars, or both, for each such violation. Every instance of an Air Carrier exceeding its ADNE allocation during any compliance reporting period, any failure to file a required report in a timely manner, or any other violation of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be a separate offense. 7.2 TOSS OF NOISE ALLOCATION Any Air Carrier that exceeds its ADNE allocation during any compliance reporting period or otherwise violates the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to loss of all or part of its ADNE allocation for such period of time as the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing may determine. SEcTJ.ON 8 - PETITIONS FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS. An Air Carrier may petition the Commission for a temporary "hardship" exemp- tion from compliance with the allocation ceiling for that carrier. To receive an exemption, the Air Carrier must satisfy the Commission that it is unable to comply due solely to the composition of its existing aircraft fleet and (a) that it is unable to acquire alternative or additional aircraft that would allow it to comply with the Ordinance in a timely manner or (b) that through no fault of its own delays have occurred in the delivery of quieter aircraft or noise attenuation modifications to existing aircraft that had been purchased or contracted for, and that it is diligently pursuing a fleet improvement program that, as evidenced by existing contracts, will allow it to achieve compliance 1 -9- with the Ordinance on an alternative schedule that, given the facts presented by the Air Carrier, is satisfactory to the Commission. All interested parties will be afforded the opportunity to comment on the Air Carrier's petition for a hardship exemption. The Commission itself (and not by delegation) must grant or deny, in whole or in part, the hardship peti- tion within 21 days following the deadline for receipt of comments on the peti- tion. The Commission may not grant any exemption that waives compliance with the Ordinance longer than the minimum amount of time necessary for the Air Carrier to comply and in no event may such a temporary waiver exceed one (1) • year in duration. SEuTICN 9 - SAVINGS CLAUSE. If any cart, provision, or provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, such unconstitutionality or illegality shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of the Ordinance, and the Cormission hereby declares it would have passed the remaining parts of this Ordinance in any event had it known that such part, provision, or provisions might be unenforceable because unconstitutional or illegal. SECTION 10 - EFFECTIVE DATE AND DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION. This Ordinance shall be in full force and take effect upon the filing of the same with proof of publication thereof with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota. The date of implementation of this Ordinance shall be the first day of the first compliance reporting period that begins more than 75 days after the effective date of the Ordinance. IO — 10 - APPENDIX TO DRAFT NOISE BUDGET ORDINANCE Methodology For Calculating Noise Energy Of Air Carrier Aircraft Operations At Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport The following materials describe technically the methodology that mist be utilized by air carriers in calculating the total noise energy ( "Average Daily Noise Energy" (ADNE)) for their Requests for Allocation of Noise Energy that are to be submitted to the Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance. In addition, the Appendix includes tentative calculations by the Commission of estimated allocations of ADNE for air carriers as of the date of implementation of the Ordinance. Specifically, formulas, or calculations resulting from the application of formulas, are included in this Appendix for: A. Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) for all operations of an air carrier during any compliance reporting period; and B. Allocations to air carriers as of the date of implementation of the Ordinance: 1. the total ceiling on ADNE that is to be allocated to air carriers; 2. the amount of ADNE that would be guaranteed ( "Guaranteed Allocation ") to incumbent air carriers continuing to serve the Airport; 3. the additional amount of ADNE that would be reserved for possible use by new entrant air carriers planning to begin service at the Airport on or during the 180 days following . the date of implementation; and 4. the apportionment of the remaining amount of ADNE to incumbent air carriers based on their historical levels of service at the Airport; and C. Conversion of ADNE to Equivalent Aircraft (B- 727 -200) takeoff and landing cycles. A. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE DAILY NOISE ENERGY (ADNE) Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) to be requested of the Commission in a Request for Allocation of Noise Energy shall not exceed the amount of ADNE that is available to an air carrier under section 2.3 of the Ordinance, computed as follows: IC/ - 11 - LOG [Number of Average Weekday Takeoff /Landing Cycles for Aircraft Type A X Antilog ( EPNdB per cycle for Aircraft A/10) + Number of Average Weekday Takeoff /Landing Cycles for Aircraft Type B X Antilog ( EPNdB per cycle for Aircraft B /10), etc.] X 10 = ADNE This formula involves the following steps: Srr' 1. Determine Noise Energy of Aircraft Type: Determine from Table (attached) the noise energy that is produced from a single takeoff /landing cycle of an aircraft type that an air carrier plans to operate at the Airport during a compliance reporting period; srr� 2. Compute Average Daily Noise Energy of Aircraft Type: Add (by decibel addition) the noise energy for as many total cycles of that aircraft type as the air carrier plans to operate during the total number of weekdays during a compliance reporting period and divide that total by the number of actual weekdays within that reporting period; Sl'tV 3. Compute ADNE for All Other Aircraft Types: Compute Srr�S 1 and 2 for each other type of aircraft that the air carrier plans to operate at the Airport; and 5rr1 4. Compare Totals Against Carrier's ADNE: Determine that the planned operations of the air carrier as calculated under Srr 'S 1, 2 and 3 would not exceed the air carrier's total ADNE allowance. Sample calculations of ADNE for three airline fleet mixes are shown in Section B.3, following. B. ALLOCATIONS TO AIR CARRIERS AS OF DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE 1. TOTAL CEILING ON NOISE ENERGY The initial ceiling on aircraft noise energy that may be produced by all takeoff /landing cycles of all air carrier aircraft as of the date of implementation of the Ordinance is set at 124.46 EPNdB, the total averaged noise energy produced by air carrier aircraft during 1984. 2. "GUARANTEED ALLOCATIONS" TO INCUMBENTS The 124.46 EPNdB total ceiling on noise energy (a) is first reduced by 113.56 EPNdB, or 8.1 %, equal to the noise energy produced in August 1986 by aircraft takeoff /landing cycles • a o - 12 - . protected from reduction by air carriers producing less than 106.56 EPNdB (Guaranteed Allocations); and (b) is then further reduced by 109.1 EPNdB, or 2.9 %, equal to the additional noise energy that could be produced by incumbent air carriers without exceeding each carrier's 106.56 EPNdB Guaranteed Allocation for providing adequate competition. 3. SETASIDE OF "GUARANTEED ALLOCATIONS" FOR USE BY NEW ENTRANT AIR CARRIERS The 124.46 EPNdB total ceiling is finally reduced by 111.44 EPNdB, or 5 %, equal to the noise energy that could be produced by not less than three new entrant air carriers proposing to serve the Airport on the date of implementation of the Ordinance or within the 180 days following, and each using up to its 106.56 EPNdB Guaranteed Allocation for providing adequate competition. To determine if planned takeoff /landing cycles of individual air carriers would exceed any carrier's Guaranteed Allocation of 106.56 EPNdB (excluding international and EAS operations), the general formula (see A., above) for calculating total air carrier ADNE would be applied. — Range of Options Available to New Entrants The following examples indicate the wide range of options for a variable nuirber of aircraft takeoff/ landing cycles that are available to a new entrant air carrier -- all within the Guaranteed Allocation of 106.56 EPNdB: (a) Airline A has 3 daily B -727 -200 takeoff/ landing cycles. LOG [3 X Antilog (101.6/10)] X 10 = 106.37 EPNdB (b) Airline B has 2 daily 3 -200, 7 daily MD-80 - takeoff /landing cycles. LOG [2 X Antilog (101.6/10) + 7 X Antilog (92.8/10)] X 10 = 106.26 EPNdB (c) Airline C has 24 daily B -757 -200 takeoff/ landing cycles. LOG [24 X Antilog (92.6/10)] X 10 = 106.40 EPNdB In the examples above, no airline would exceed its Guaranteed Allocation of 106.56 EPNdB, even with large differences in the composition of their fleets. The ADNE produced by the three B- . 727-200's of Airline A is equivalent to that of twenty -four B-757- 200's of Airline C. . �l -13- 4. ALLOCATION OF REMAINING NOISE ENERGY TO INCUMBENT AIR CARRIERS BASED ON LEVELS OF HISTORICAL SERVICE The remaining noise energy (after above reductions for Guaranteed Allocations for any international and EAS operations) equals 123.71 EPNdB in ADNE and is allocated to incumbent air carriers based on each carrier's proportion of the total 45,275 daily seats flown at the Airport by takeoff /landing cycles of scheduled air carrier aircraft during the base period (August 1986). (The number of seats per takeoff /landing cycle for individual aircraft is obtained from the attached Table). However, no air carrier would be allocated less than 106.56 EPNdB in noise energy under this formula. Stated in terms of a formula, the allocation to individual air carriers related to their levels of historical service is as follows: LOG ((Number of Daily Seats Flown by Takeoff/ Landing Cycles of Airline A/45275) X Antilog (123.71/10)] X 10 For example, if Airline A flew 22,637 daily seats, or 50% of the total airport seats in August 1986, its allocation of the 123.71 EPNdB would be: LOG ((22637/45275) X Antilog (123.71/10)] X 10 = 120.70 EPNdB C. CONVERSION OF ADNE TO EQUIVALENT AIRCRAFT TAKEOFF/LANDING CYCLES The calculation of ADNE requires the use of logarithms and antilogarithms, concepts not always easy to comprehend. Therefore, the concept of "Equivalent Aircraft" is introduced in this Appendix to allow use of basic arithmetic to more easily quantify the number of allowable takeoff /landing cycles for a given amount of ADNE. The "Equivalent Aircraft" utilized for this calculation is the B -727- . 200, the most common aircraft in use at the Airport and in the nation. The noise energy per takeoff /landing cycle of the aircraft, 101.6 EPNdB, is used as a baseline amount, or 1.0 Equivalent Aircraft. An aircraft which produces twice the noise energy, or 104.5 EPNdB, would represent two Equivalent Aircraft. By assigning a number of Equivalent Aircraft cycles to each specific ADNE value, and using the equivalent Aircraft values for each aircraft type listed in the Table, a variety of aircraft mixes can be developed without the use of logarithms. For example: The 123.71 EPNdB to be allocated to incumbent air carriers represents 163 Equivalent Aircraft takeoff /landing cycles (123.71/101.6, in logarithms). - 14 - Using the Table, the 163 Equivalent Aircraft could be comprised of the following numbers of takeoff /landing cycles for different aircraft types. (a) 163 3 -727 -200 (163/1.0 Equivalent Aircraft), (b) 1288 B- 757 -200 (1288/7.9 Equivalent Aircraft), or (c) 81 3- 727 -200 and 648 B -757 -200 (81/1.0 Equivalent Aircraft + 648/7.9 Equivalent Aircraft) • a � - 15 - TABLE Levels of EPNdB for Airline Aircraft at MSP and Equivalent Aircraft Equivalent Aircraft (Based on EPNdB per Energy of one Takeoff/ B- 727 -200 Landing Takeoff /Landing Aircraft 1/ Cycle 2/ Cycle) 2/ Seats 3/ DC -9 -10 (JT8D -7A) 95.8 3.8 83 DC -9 -30 (JT8D -7A) 96.4 3.3 100 DC -9 -30 (JT8D -17) 99.9 1.5 124 MD -80 (JT8D -219) 92.8 7.6 144 737 -200 (JT8D -15QN) 99.3 1.7 113 737 -300 (CFM56 -3B-2) 93.9 5.9 132 B- 727 -100 (JT8D -7) 100.7 1.2 117 B- 727 -200 (JT8D -15QN) 101.6 1.0 146 747 -200 (JT9D -70A) 103.0 0.7 395 757 -200 (PW 2037) 92.6 7.9 •185 DC -10 -40 (JT9D -20D) 103.0 0.7 269 767 -200 (CF6 -80A2) 96.5 3.2 197 CV -580 (ASN501 -D13D) 89.8 15.1 50 F -28 -1000 (W555 -15) 95.9 3.5 70 DC -8 -73 (CFM56 -2 -c1) 97.2 2.8 200 1/ Models and engines shown represent most common types used in service at MSP and are standard for all calculations. No information is presented for regional airline aircraft since it is expected that no regional carrier would have in the foreseeable future a total ADNE that exceeds its 106.56 EPNdB Guaranteed Allocation of noise energy. To obtain data on air carrier aircraft not listed, contact the Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2/ Logarithmic sum of FAR Part 36 certification takeoff and landing noise levels, as presented in FAA PC -36 -1D for maximum takeoff and landing weights. Certificated landing levels for all aircraft were reduced by 6.6 EPNdB so that average landing levels for the fifteen (15) aircraft types shown equal average Part 36 takeoff levels. 3/ Seats shown are weighted average by aircraft type using CY 1984 data from U.S. DOT, Aircraft Operating Cost and Performance Report. Weighted average seats will be revised using CY 1985 seat data and August 1986 fleet mix when U.S. DOT data is available. • SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF DRAFT NOISE BUDGET ORDINANCE Introduction The Draft Noise Budget Ordinance described in this Summary has been pro- posed for the consideration of the Metropolitan Airports Commission by a Noise Budget Working Group of local government officials and community represen- tatives that was established by the Commission to determine the feasibility of the "noise budget" methodology to the aircraft noise situation at the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport. The Working Group completed its Final Report in December 1986 and submitted it and supplemental documents to the Commission. In that Report, all but two members of the Working Group agreed on the general "noise budget" concept but two additional members felt that the degree of noise reduction proposed in the Draft Ordinance (see Section II.B., below) was too severe. That issue, among others, has been raised for public comment in the Commission's Notice of Public Hearing on the Draft Noise Budget Ordinance. The public hearing will be held at the Commission's General Offices on January 28, 1987. I. EXPLANATION OF PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE A. Reduction and Allocation of Air Carrier Noise Energy The "noise budget" ordinance provides a regulatory mechanism by which the Metropolitan Airports Commission ( "Commission ") can: 1. establish a ceiling on the total amount of noise energy that can collectively be produced by all the operations of all air carrier aircraft serving the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport • ( "Airport ") after a certain date ( "date of implementation "); and 2. equitably allocate that total amount of permissible noise energy among all classes of air carriers serving the Airport and among individual air carriers for their use. This ceiling on aircraft noise protects the community from any future increases in noise caused by increases in air carrier aircraft operations; moreover, the overall noise ceiling itself can be further reduced over time. Since an air carrier can substitute more operations of quieter aircraft for fewer operations of noisier aircraft within its total allocation of noise energy, there is an incentive to the air carrier and a benefit to the community from greater use of more quiet aircraft. B. Many Aircraft Operations Exempted from Ordinance - Many aircraft operators at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport would be completely exempted from the Noise Budget Ordinance or their opera- tions ( "takeoff and landing- cycles ") while regulated by the Commission would not be reduced by this Ordinance. - 2 - 1 • Generally speaking, general aviation aircraft and public aircraft (owned by the Federal Government or the State of Minnesota) are completely exempted since this draft Ordinance only regulates "air carrier aircraft." Further, the noise levels produced by regional (commuter) airlines, by cargo and non - scheduled air carriers and by all but six incumbent scheduled passenger - carrying airlines (or airline companies) would not be adversely affected by this draft Ordinance because their current shares of noise energy without any reduction are less than the minimum allocations of noise energy that would be guaranteed to all air carriers ( "Guaranteed Allocation "). While each category of airport user is being required or encouraged to reduce the noisiness of their operations, these objectives can be simulta- neously achieved through other elements in the Commission's April 1986 27 -point program of noise mitigation measures and are not appropriate for implemen- tation through the mechanism of a Noise Budget Ordinance. II. MEASURING AND ALLOCATING AIRCRAFT NOISE ENERGY A. Establishing Units of Noise Energy Measurement The draft Ordinance measures aircraft noise energy in decibels of effective perceived noise levels (EPNdB) (section 1) which is a traditional single event measuring unit that is utilized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in certificating airline aircraft for noise purposes. Allocations of noise energy (hereafter "average daily noise energy" (ADNE)) are to be given to individual airlines ( "Air Carriers ") in units of EPNdB produced by departures and arrivals ( "takeoff and landing cycles ") of the aircraft types that serve the Airport. The Appendix to the draft Ordinance explains the technical basis for the noise measurements and for the formulas for allocating ADNE to individual air carriers. (While noisier aircraft produce higher EPNdB levels, readers are warned that all calculations of noise energy (other than comparisons of relative "noisiness" of "Equivalent Aircraft" (see Table in Appendix) are logarithmic not arithmetic and cumulative totals of noise energy may be difficult to understand.) B. Establishing Initial and 1990 Noise Ceilings 1. Lowering Noise Ceilings Over'Time The draft Ordinance establishes a total ceiling of 124.46 EPNdB in ADNE for all air carrier aircraft operations (measured in takeoff and landing cycles) from its date of implementation until June 15, 1990 (section 2.2). That ceiling would involve a reduction in noise energy of 18% or 56 takeoff and landing cycles of equivalent aircraft (B-727 -200). The ceiling would be further reduced to 124.27 EPNdB after June 15, 1990, by further reductions (if necessary) in allocations of ADNE to air carriers. This would represent a cumulative 22% reduction in noise energy from August 1986 noise levels. -3- 2. Basis for Establishing Specific Noise Ceilings The proposed initial ceiling is equal to the noise energy that was produced by airline aircraft at the Airport during calendar year 1984, a base year in terms of community- acceptable levels of aircraft noise emissions. Based on analysis of recent sensitivity surveys of metropolitan area residents and of the pattern of increasing numbers of recorded citizen complaints about aircraft noise over a number of years, the draft Ordinance reflects the conclusion that a reduction of total airline aircraft noise to 1984 levels would provide meaning- ful relief to many area residents. Other indicators support the proposed level of noise reduction. An 18% reduction in noise energy would equal a reduction of 24% of total equivalent aircraft (8- -727 -200) takeoff /landing cycles as of August 1986 and would reduce the total number of residents exposed to higher than acceptable levels of noise, based on changes in cumulative noise contours. The draft Ordinance incorporates a further reduction in overall airline aircraft noise energy in 1990, providing a cumulative 22% reduction from actual August 1986 levels. C. Procedure for Obtaining Allocations of Noise Energy Any air carrier planning to serve the Airport, either on the date of imple- mentation of the draft Ordinance or thereafter, must file a Request for Allocation of Noise Energy with the Commission not later than 75 days before the implementation date, the date thereafter of initial service at the Airport by an air carrier, or the date of any proposed change in an air carrier's ADNE allo- cation (section 4.1). That Request must contain sufficient information about the carrier's planned operations that the Commission can verify that the level of operations planned will not exceed the air carrier's ADNE. The Commission will respond to an air carrier's timely request for an allocation of ADNE not less than 60 days before the carrier's plan is scheduled to take effect (section 4.3). D. Categories of Noise Allocations An air carrier's total ADNE allocation may be comprised of up to three dif- ferent categories of noise energy: Guaranteed Allocations, allocations based on the air carrier's historical level of service at the Airport, and allocations transferred to it from other air carriers (section 2.3). 1. Guaranteed Allocations The draft Ordinance establishes a category of air carrier aircraft opera- tions the noise energy for which is guaranteed ( "Guaranteed Allocation ") and thus is not subject to being reduced although it is included within the overall noise ceiling required by the ordinance. Guaranteed Allocations of ADNE cover aircraft operations mandated by the Federal Government (international flights and Essential . Air Service flights) (section 3.2). • -4- In addition, a Guaranteed Allocation of up to 106.56 EPNdB in ADNE is pro- vided by the Commission to any air carrier serving or willing to serve the Airport so that there will be ample opportunity for competitive air services to be provided at the Airport (section 4.2). This Guaranteed Allocation of ADNE will be adequate to provide a wide variety of competing services. Within that ADNE, for example, an air carrier could provide 3 daily takeoff /landing cycles of B -727 -200 equipment (three complete flights), or a combination of two B -727 -200 and seven MD-80 daily cycles (nine complete flights) or some 24 daily cycles (flights) of B- 757 -200 equipment (see Appendix). Guaranteed Allocations of ADNE may not be transferred among air carriers (section 4.6) but will be withdrawn by the Commission if not used for the pur- poses for which allocated (section 5.1), or if the airline reduces service to or ends all air service at the Airport. 2. Allocations Based on Historical Service Larger incumbent air carriers (or air carrier companies) that served the Airport in August 1986 would be eligible under the draft Ordinance not only for a Guaranteed Allocation as outlined above but also for an additional allocation of ADNE in direct proportion to each's historical share of air service to the Airport treasured in total seats for scheduled takeoff /landing cycles during August 1986 (section 3.3). 3. Allocations Transferred from Other Air Carriers The total amount of ADNE available to an air carrier may also include any noise energy transferred to it from another air carrier in accordance with guidelines established by the Commission. Noise allocations other than Guaranteed Allocations may be leased, assigned or otherwise transferred among air carriers for money or any other consideration so that carriers can increase or decrease the level of their ADNE and operations at the Airport over time (section 4.6). III. INITIAL ALLOCATIONS OF ADNE AT DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION Allocations to air carriers that will serve the Airport on the date of implementation of the draft Ordinance will be made by the Commission (section 3) in response to air carrier Requests for Allocations of Noise Energy, as follows: A. Guaranteed Allocations First, a share of the 124.46 EPNdB ceiling of ADNE will be made available as of that date for the estimated requirements of air carriers for Guaranteed Allocations, as follows: 1. 11% or 114.87 EPNdB for Guaranteed Allocations to incumbent air carriers, computed as follows: 8.1% or 113.56 EPNdB for • ;;?,i -5- Guaranteed Allocations of ADNE used by air carriers serving the Airport in August 1986 and producing less than 106.56 EPNdB in noise energy, plus an additional 2.9% or 109.01 EPNdB, to allow incumbent air carriers to increase their numbers of takeoff /landing cycles but not so as to individually exceed 106.56 EPNdB. This allowance is adequate to guarantee the August 1986 levels of operations of all regional (commuter), all -cargo, and scheduled and non - scheduled operations of charter air carriers. Further, only six air carriers or combinations of air carriers exceeded that Guaranteed Allocation level at that time (Northwest/Republic; Texas Air Corporation air carriers (Continental, Eastern, People Express), American; Delta/Western; United; and TWA/Ozark); 2. 5% or 111.44 EPNdB for Guaranteed Allocations for not less than three new entrant air carriers, each requesting up to 106.56 EPNdB in ADNE so that they could commence air service at the Airport on the date of implementation or within the succeeding 180 day period (section 3.1(b). B. Allocations for Historical Service Next, the estimated 123.71 EPNdB in ADNE that remains after the above reductions for Guaranteed Allocations will be made available by the Commission to the remaining six air carriers (air carrier companies) in proportion to their August 1986 market shares at the Airport. The final allocation to any air carrier would not be less than its Guaranteed Allocation of 106.56 EPNdB. The attached Table, Estimated Impact of Draft Noise Budget Ordinance on Six Incumbent Air Carriers Serving MSP Airport, indicates estimated ADNE levels and potential numbers of takeoff and landing cycles at date of implementation as well as estimated reductions in operations from August 1986 levels. These com- putations are presented in cycles of "Equivalent Aircraft" (with the B -727- 200 as the baseline aircraft type) so that the reader can measure impacts and tra- deoffs arithmetically. Depending upon the relative noisiness of the aircraft actually used, the numbers of operations that would need to be eliminated could be greater or less (see Table in the Appendix to draft Ordinance). C. Temporary Use of Noise Energy To the extent that new entrant air carriers and incumbent air carriers do not request the amounts of Guaranteed Allocations of ADNE that had been reserved for their operations (above), that excess allocation of ADNE will be made available pro -rata to the six airlines from which that noise energy had been taken, for their use on a temporary basis until needed for additional Guaranteed Allocations (section 3.4). IV. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO USE, WITHDRAWAL AND EXPIRATION OF NOISE ALLOCATIONS • � - 6 - A. Withdrawals of ADNE Allocations The Commission may withdraw ADNE from any air carrier that does not use its allocation at least 65% of possible aircraft cycles, or uses it other than for the purpose for which it was allocated, or for producing without justification more ADNE than allowed during any one of seven periods during the year ( "compliance reporting periods ") during which the Commission compares planned use of ADNE with actual operations (sections 5.1 and 5.2). The Commission may also withdraw additional noise energy from air carriers in proportion to their then - current allocations of ADNE if additional allocations are needed for addi- tional new entrant air carriers (section 5.2). B. Expiration of ADNE Allocations The Commission will not impose any charges or fees on air carriers for the allocations of ADNE it awards under its Ordinance, at least until January 1989 when its long -term agreements with air carriers ( "Use Fee Agreements ") are scheduled to expire. After that time, the Commission may choose to extend its noise allocations, allow them to expire, merge them into new Use Fee Agreements or allocate them through another Ordinance (sections 4.4 and 5.3). V. COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES A. Compliance with Ordinance The Commission will require air carriers to submit reports immediately after each compliance reporting period comparing planned use of ADNE against actual operations during that period and providing justification for any variances (section 6.1). The Commission will also monitor carrier compliance during each reporting period to preclude carriers from exceeeding their ADNE allocations (section 6.2). B. Penalties and Sanctions for Violations Any person (including an airline corporation or company and its officials) that violates the Ordinance may be imprisoned for not more than ninety (90) days or fined not more than $700.00 for each violation (section 7). Violations include exceeding an ADNE allocation for a compliance reporting period without adequate justification or failing to file required reports or using an ADNE "fuaranteed Allocation" other than for the purpose awarded (i.e., international or EAS operations). In addition, the Commission may withdraw all or part of a carrier's ADNE, after notice to the carrier and the opportunity for a hearing, for violation of the Ordinance (section 7.2). C. "Hardship" Exemption from Compliance with ADNE Allocation Any air carrier may petition the Commission for up to a one -year "hardship" exemption from compliance with its ADNE allocation (section 8). The Commission, after providing the opportunity for the petitioning carrier and other parties to be heard, crust promptly grant or deny the petition and may only • - 7 - • grant the exemption for a limited period of time (not more than one year) in very narrow circumstances in which the carrier convincingly documents that it is unable to comply with the Ordinance through no fault of its own. VI. DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE The date of implementation of the draft Ordinance would be set not sooner than seventy -five (75) days after its effective date (section 10). v / - 8 - TABLE ESTIMATED IMPACT OF DRAFT NOISE BUDGET ORDINANCE ON SIX LARGEST AIR CARRIERS SERVING MSP AIRPORT EQUIVALENT AIRCRAFT 1/ CYCLES PER AVERAGE WEEKDAY ADNE ALLOCATION POSSIBLE CYCLES 2/ REDUCTIONS IN AIR CARRIERS AS OF AT CYCLES FROM (COMPANIES) SERVING IMPLEMENTATION DATE IMPLEMENTATION 8/86 MSP 8/86 (in EPNdB) DATE LEVEL NORTHWEST (REPUBLIC) 122.99 137.7 41.5 TAC (CONTINENTAL, EASTERN, PEOPLE EXPRESS) 110.48 7.7 4.6 AMERICAN 107.81 4.1 2.1 DELTA (WESTERN) 107.70 4.1 2.8 UNITED 108.70 5.1 3.9 TWA (OZARK) 107.26 3.7 1.5 1 /Computations are for average weekday takeoff and landing cycles for a B- 727 -200 aircraft, the most common aircraft in use at the .Airport and in the nation. 2/Depending upon the relative noisiness of the aircraft actually used, the number of cycles that could be operated at implementation date and the reductions in cycles from August 1986 levels would be greater or less (see Table in Appendix to Draft Ordinance). Calculations of cycles exclude international operations. a REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TEE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOISE BUDGET WORKING GROUP I. Introduction In April, 1986, the Metropolitan Airports Commission adopted a 27 -point program to address aircraft noise problems at Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. A central element of this program was the establishment of a ten - member Working Group to "...evaluate the feasibility of implementing by ordinance at Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport a noise budget for that facility. The evaluation should include an assessment of: 1) alternative ways of deter- mining the environmental capacity of the airport based on acceptable noise levels, 2) projected changes in traffic and number of operations at MSP, 3) methods of avoiding discrimination and undue restriction to new access at MSP, and 4) impacts on interstate commerce, air service, and competition. The working group shall take into account the Part 150 Study as adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The working group shall proceed on the following schedule: November 1, 1986 - completion of draft ordinance; April 1, 1987 - consideration by MAC of draft ordinance; June 15, 1987 - pilot implementation of ordi- nance, if adopted by MAC." The Working Group has held 20 meetings beginning in June, 1986, to fully consider all aspects of the noise problem at MSP and to develop recommendations on the form of the noise reduction mecha- nism that would be most appropriate for implementation at MSP. Further, the Working Group with the assistance of a technical consultant provided by the Commission examined data, (compiled prior to the Northwest Airlines acquisition of Republic Airlines suggesting that aircraft noise levels at MSP would continue to rise until approximately 1990 and stay above current levels through 1996, unless some noise reduction mechanism was adopted. Finally, the Working Group analyzed the results of a public opi- nion survey of MSP area residents concerning their sensitivity tc various levels and types of aircraft noise. The Working Group and its consultant considered in detail some sixteen possible "noise budget" mechanisms for limiting aircraft noise at MSP. The Group sent its representatives to study aircraft noise reducing mechanisms already in place at Logan International Airport (Boston, MA), MacArthur Airport (Islip, NY), and Santa Ana- Orange County Airport and Burbank - Pasadena - Glendale Airport (CA). The Working Group received reports on these site visits in August, 1986. II. Objectives Before selecting a noise budget alternative, the Working Group adopted a statement of objectives to be accomplished in a noise reduction program: A. Overall Noise Reduction. To reduce the total aggregate noise energy produced by air carrier aircraft at the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport to levels being experienced in 1984. B. Distributional 1quity. To increase the daytime (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.) use of the Preferential Runway Systeml to an annual average of five to six hours a day. In adopting a noise budget which accomplishes Objectives 1 and 2, alternatives should be measured against the following con- siderations: - flexibility for airlines /users - efficiency of airline operations - economic impact III. Recommendations A. A phased "noise budget' concept, setting a cap on total aircraft noise by scheduled air carriers initially at 124.3 EPNdB and ultimately at 124.11 EPNdB, is recommended from some 16 alternative noise reduction mechanisms that were analyzed by the Working Group for possible implementation at MSP. The initial reduction, which is based upon 1984 twelve -month average noise levels, would be implemented on June 15, 1987 and represents an 18% reduction in total nois* from August 1986 noise levels. The second step, which is based on January - June 1984 noise levels, would be imple- mented on June 15, 1990 and represents a 22% reduction in total noise from August 1986 levels. MAC should equitably 1 The Preferential Runway System (PRS) is defined as the following two operating configurations: (1) arrivals on Runways 29L and 29R, and departures on Runway 22; and (2) arrivals on Runway 4 (3V allocate shares of total The initial otal noise to incumbent and new entrant enough to al cap on noise a s ubstantial to iai ereduct oammunities at currently impacted set low a98u basnliae in noise x osure frome b and evaluated le annually, includin vel. The aoise.b from the August, se and get should be reviewed achieving Objective i an assessment through the 1987 -1992 timefr � Distributional Egaitpsjgrew Progress toward meeting ame If significant y progress remedi g Objective 2 is not annual tion 1988, measures should be implemented evident, ly June, nsti thereafter The nu as early as any measures s which account' Th e annual review and extension hick will impact use of actu S, for experience With landing of Runway 4/22 or imposition of differential , for e 4 fees. 1. General Ao roach The Workin Group initiall possible "variations" y identified on a noise bud a list of 15 Alternative get; e 1- Establish cents annual gO31s for maximum ges of S tage II operations by any per air carrier. Alternativ 2 : Establish an annual n ' index (NPSI) for vise per seat Alternative all air carriers. - 3: Establish an index annual noise (NPFI) for all air per flight Alternative 4: Establish establish a total dail level fo the Airport; noise energy among fort in roort; allocate energy g and future carriers. . and GroupePartures on Runways on ays lit and 11R. Group definition for Although the sideration proposals the purpose of Working reaching a recommendation analyzing redirects the Group recognized R d for very little ai traffic the to t M AC con - departures and already minimal. a s defined departures and a rrivals ar the northeast, the Metro where examine ways Metropolitan Aircraft The Worming Group (ions to the y to rectify Sound Abatement should be he PRS- Specific sty this inequity through Counci: e developed Specific consideration addressing th modifiea- Aviation Administration t this t `: a (ion (FAA) . oY MAC and the Federal - , , - ederal :- �. I 4 .. __55 F L Y - Alternative 5: Establish a limit on total daily Stage II operations. Alternative lk: Establish annual goals for maximum oer- centages of Stage II operations and establish an hourly slot system to per- mit more balanced use of the parallel runways and the Preferential Runway System. Alternative 1B: Establish annual goals for maximum per- centages of Stage II operations and establish a daily slot system. Alternative 1C: Establish annual goals for maximum per- centages of Stage II operations and improve PRS capacity through an exten- sion of Runway 4/22. Alternative 2A: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) and establish an hourly slot system. Alternative 2B: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) and limit total daily operations. Alternative 2C: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) and improve PRS capacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. Alternative 3A: Establish an annual noise per flight index (NPFI) and establish an hourly slot system. Alternative 3B: Establish an annual noise per flight index (NPFI) and establish daily slot system. Alternative 3C: Establish an annual noise per flight index (NPFI) and improve PRS capacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. Alternative 4C: Establish a total daily noise energy level for the Airport, allocate energy among air carriers and improve PRS capacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. Alternative 5C: Establish a limit on total daily Stage II operations and improve PRS caoacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. ' - 5 - After considerable debate and analysis of these alternatives, a general concensus formed that a noise budget setting a ceiling on total noise energy and equitably allocating that total energy to incumbent and new entrant airlines serving MSP was the preferred alternative for achieving the Group's objectives. The advantages of the pure "noise budget" approach were seen as: - Direct regulation of total noise energy generated at the Airport. - Strong incentive for air carriers to utilize quieter Stage III aircraft. - Less direct interference with airline scheduling and operations, thereby increasing airline flexibility and minimizing impacts on air commerce. kir carriers would be free to "budget" their noise allocations between more ooerations of quieter aircraft or fewer operations of noisier aircraft. - Less administrative burden to MAC. 2. Level of Noise Reduction A majority of group members recommends that MAC set an initial cap on MSP noise at an average daily noise energy level of 124.30 EPNdB effective June 15, 1987 and an ultimate cap of 124.11 FPNdB as of June 15, 1990. This noise level is established based upon an assessment of noise levels in 1984, which was identified through the Group's public opinion survey as a time period during which a large number of metropolitan area residents experienced a substantial worsening of conditions. In addition, the Governor's Task Force on Aircraft Noise recommended that MAC establish a noise budget based upon "aggregate noise levels in 1984." A reduction in average dail? noise levels to 124.30 EPNdB is equivalent to approximately an 18% reduction in total noise energy from levels experienced in August, 1986; a reduction to 124.11 EPNdB is equivalent to approximately a 22% reduction from August, 1986 noise levels. The initial energy reduction would require nearly a 30% cut in Stage II aircraft operations from August, 1986 operating levels, assuming that all flights would be switched to Stage III 2 EPNdB is "effective perceived noise level." The perceived noise level (PNL) is the actual noise level adjusted to account for the fact that the higher frequency part of the noise spectrum is the 37 - v - aircraft. In addition to the cuts in Stage II operations required to reduc--. total noise energy, the rule would require additional cuts from • air carriers presently serving MSP ( "incumbent carriers ") in order to create a pool for new entrant carriers. Because no scheduled air carrier was willing to participate in the Working Group's activities, it was difficult to assess the precise impact of the Group's proposal on any particular air carrier. Assessment of the impact upon Northwest Airlines, the airport's largest user, was also made more difficult by Northwest's merger with Republic Airlines. On October 1, 1986, Northwest reduced its total aircraft operations at the Airport by 18 %, reflecting efficiencies from its merger with Republic as well as seasonal schedule adjustments. Under the proposed ordi- nance, Northwest would initially be required to cut as many as 42 daily aircraft operations from its current schedule. In addi- tion, all other incumbent air carriers would be required to cut approximately 48 daily operations. These estimates for required cuts in operations described above assume no replacement of noisy aircraft with quieter aircraft. 3. Annual Review The Working Group recognizes the importance of the Preferential Runway System (PRS) as a mechanism for distributing noise equitably throughout the area and urges FAA to utilize the PRS during any hours of the day when numbers of aircraft operations allow its use. While the "noise budget" alternative selected does not guarantee or mandate use of the PRS during a certain number of hours per day, the Working Group concluded that the "noise budget" could permit some increased use of PRS in the short and middle term in the event air carriers are unable imme- diately to substitute a substantial number of quiet technology aircraft. However, because achievement of Objective 2 cannot in any way be guaranteed, the Working Group recommends that the primary contributor to an individual's perception of the noisi- ness of a sound. The effective perceived noise level is obtaine by integrating the tone - corrected PNL over the period of a singl event, introducing considerations of frequency and duration. EPNdB has been used for many years as a measure of aircraft noise. 3 See footnote 1. 37 - 7 - noise budget be reviewed and evaluated annually to assess progress toward achieving increased "distributional equity" through use of the PPS and recommends further that additional remedial action be taken by MAC if the objective of "Distributional Equity" is not achieved. B. MAC should announce a schedule for reviewing the Noise Budget proposal developed by the Working Group so that the views of the scheduled airlines, other aviation users, surrounding communities and the Q.S. Department of Transportation can be obtained. A preliminary public hearing should be held in January, 1987, on the Working Group's recommended approach and draft ordinance, in advance of adoption of a final noise budget ordinance. As noted, the Working Group's efforts to develop a noise budget ordinance have been made More difficult by the unwillingness of the scheduled airlines to participate in the Working Group's activities. In addition, the FAA chose to monitor the Working Group's activities rather than to participate fully in the deve- lopment of the Group's recommendations. Finally, the views of other airport users and all surrounding communities have not yet been solicited on the Noise Budget concept under consideration. The Working Group thus recommends that MAC announce its schedule for considering the noise budget concept the Group has developed and that MAC conduct two public hearings between now and April 1, 1987: a first public hearing to receive community, aviation industry and, hopefully, U.S. Department of Transportation com- ments on the noise budget approach of the Working Group; and a second public hearing on the overall Part 150 Aircraft Noise Compatibility Program, including the final version of a noise budget as part of that comprehensive submission. The Working Group is currently in the process of drafting a detailed outline and draft ordinance specifying the precise mechanisms which should be utilized by MAC. It is expected that the draft ordinance, together with a comprehensive report setting out all supporting documentation, will be submitted to MAC within the next three to four weeks. C. MAC should include the Noise Budget ordinance in its compre- hensive Part 150 Aircraft Noise Compatibility Program being readied for submission to FAA. A final public hearing on the comprehensive Part 150 program should be held not later than April, 1987. The Working Group would not envision that MAC's decision to con- duct two public hearings on the noise budget approach and then on the overall Part 150 program should delay either process. Under c.239 — 8 — the recommended scenario, MAC could both act on the noise budget ordinance and submit its comprehensive Part 150 Program to FAA by April, 1987. November 7, 1986 • • NOISE BUDGET WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Jocelyn Olson Bill Lester Special Assistant Attorney General Metropolitan Council Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 300 Metro Square Bldg. 520 Lafayette Road 7th & Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 296 -7343 (612) 291 -6630 Dave Kelso John Harrington Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Metropolitan Council 520 Lafayette Road 300 Metro Square Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55155 7th & Robert Street (612) 296 -7372 St. Paul, MN 55101 David M. Woodrow Thomas Anderson Director of Aviation General Counsel 3M - Aviation Dept. Bldg. 670 -01 Metropolitan Airports Commission 690 Bayfield Street 6040 28th Avenue South St. Paul, MN 55107 Minneapolis, MN 55450 (612) 778 -5800 (612) 726 -8138 Councilman Steve Cramer Nigel Finney 307 City Hall Director of Airport Development Minneapolis, MN 55417 Metropolitan Airports Commission (612) 348 -2211 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Bill Nimmo (612) 726 -8128 Dayton Hudson Corporation 777 Nicollet Mall, 14th Floor Don Priebe Minneapolis, MN 55402 7225 Bloomington (612) 370 -6477 Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 869 -8186 David Koehser 5740 - 10th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 (612) 823 -7242 Roy Madgwick Evan Futterman - Howard, Needles, Tammen, Bergendoff Howard, Needles, Tammen, Bergendoff 1500 N. Beauregard Street 1500 N. Beauregard Street Alexandria, Virginia 22133 Alexandria, Virginia 22133 (703) 998 -3200 (703) 998 -3200 Frank Benson Jack Corbett Federal Aviation Administration Spiegel & McDiarmid Airports District Office 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. 6301 34th Avenue South Washington, D.C. 20005 -4798 Minneapolis, MN 55450 (202) 879 -4023 (612) 725 -3346 • Z// STATEMENT BY STEVE CRAMER AND DAVE KOEHSER Minneapolis Council Member Steve Cramer was one of the two representatives from MASAC sharing a vote that represented the citizen side of MASAC Dave Koehser was the SMAAC respresentative on the Noise Budget Working Group. �aZ- f This statement is not a dissent from the final report, but rather an affirmation of Section III (3). It is the view of the Working Group members living in Minneapolis that Objectives One and Two - an overall cap on noise energy and equitable distribution of that noise - are of equal importance. While this document deals primarily with Objective One, we want to emphasize our support for the report hinges on the annual evaluation process in Section III (3): This recommended process requires further action if the effect of the noise budget falls short of achieving Objective Two. Needed adjustments can take many forms; e.g., removal of general aviation from the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport, enhancement of the preferential runway system, or other techniques. To prompt a thorough review of what avenues might be employed to achieve Objective Two, the Working Group is forwarding to MASAC a request to explore options for better air traffic disbursement. MAC must be prepared to take further action at the time of the first noise budget evaluation and every year thereafter to insure that Objective Two is met. During the Working Group deliberations, the representatives from Minneapolis argued that implementation of a "slot" system, coupled with a fleet mix rule (exemplified in Options lA or 1B) would more closely achieve Objective Two than the recommended alternative. We would like to urge that tf -- during the course of public hearings - data is provided that suggests .a slot system would be superior, that the subject of slots combined with a fleet mix rule be re- examined by the MAC. Finally, we agree-that the FAA should be consulted about the noise budget. However, the decision to implement the noise budget should be . made independent from and prior to any formal FAA review and comment on the MAC Part 150 Plan. y:� • v MAC Staff Report - Noise Budget Ordinance Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport The Noise Budget Working Group, has recommended the adoption of an Ordinance which would establish a noise energy limit for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The proposed noise budget was adopted by a 6 -4 vote with MAC staff, the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council user representative voting against its adoption. There are three concerns with the proposal adopted by the Noise Budget Working Group: 1) the method by which noise will be controlled, 2) the extent of the reduction in noise below the August, 1986 base period, and 3) the inability of the proposed rule to achieve "distributional equity ". 1. METHOD OF NOISE CONTROL A major focus of the Noise Budget Working Group was the evaluation of alter- native methods of controlling noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The Working Group developed an initial list of 16 alternative approaches, however based on extensive analysis completed over a series of approximately 20 meetings, these alternatives were reduced to a choice between the adoption of a mechanism that would limit the amount of aircraft noise (noise energy limit) or a mechanism that would limit the number of aircraft operations (aircraft slots). Each option has differing administrative, legal, and opera- tional implications. The consensus of the Group was that a limit on total nois energy, and the allocation of that energy to incumbent and new entrant airlines serving MSP, would be preferable to the "aircraft slot" approach that would have the MAC control and limit all aircraft operations on either an hourly or daily basis as an indirect means of controlling aircraft noise. In part, the noise energy concept was preferred over the slot approach because the imposition by MAC of noise energy limits may be less susceptable to a legal challenge than would MAC efforts to control aircraft operations. While the legal risk was only one factor considered, the importance of avoiding unnecessary delays in imple- menting a noise reduction mechanism was given considerable weight. Further, consistent with the Airline Deregulation Act, the carriers would be free under this approach to allocate their noise energy between more operations of quieter aircraft or fewer operations of noisier aircraft. There would, in fact, be considerable incentives for the airlines to operate quieter aircraft. 2. LEVEL OF NOISE CONTROL The second component of the action taken by the Working Group involves the levels of noise energy reduction. The recommendaton for the initial cutback on June 15, 1987, is a noise energy level 18% below that of August 1986. In order to achieve a reduction in airport noise energy of this magnitude, a cutback from August, 1986 activity levels of 130 operations (or 65 flights) by aircraft of average noise levels would be required. In addition, it is necessary to set aside a pool of noise energy to allow new entrant airlines to initiate service to the Twin Cities; to incorporate this pool, a total of 160 operations (80 fliOts) by aircraft of average noise levels would have 1 4 (1 l to be cut from the incumbent air carriers August 1986 schedule. The Northwest /Republic merger, effective on October 1, 1986, has moved toward these cuts. The proposed noise energy limit would require a further cut of 42 daily Northwest operations and a reduction of 48 daily operations by other airlines. The numbers provided above are for aircraft of average noise levels, and assume no replacement of the noisier aircraft with quiet aircraft. The proposed reduc- tion of 160 operations is significant based upon data provided to the Working Group with regard to the ability of airlines replace noisier aircraft with quiet aircraft. For example, Northwest Airlines does not have a sufficient number of quieter Stage III aircraft of an appropriate size to replace noisier DC -9 operations, nor does the airline have enough M080 aircraft to effectively replace B -727 operations. United Airlines is presently in a similar position with no Stage III aircraft smaller than a 3-767 to replace B -727 and B- 737 -200 operations. Given this inability to replace Stage II operations with equivalent Stage III operations, an immediate substantial loss in air service to MSP could be anticipated, with a resultant negative effect on economic development for the entire State. In addition to the immediate impacts, the extent of the cut and the lack of alternative aircraft would also preclude the airlines' ability to develop additional service in future years. Such actions seem inconsistent with Statewide efforts to attract job producing business, both national and inter- national, to Minnesota. The majority proposal also presents a greater potential for litigation challenging the Ordinance as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Governor's Task Force on Aircraft Noise, in its report published in •1985, endorsed the adoption of a noise budget for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport based upon "....aggregate noise levels in 1984.... ". As an active participant in the Governor's Task Force, it is the impression of MAC that the intent of this section of the report was to establish noise levels similar to those experienced during the open window season in 1984. The proposal adopted by the majority of the Working Group is in direct contrast to this approach. The action taken by the Metropolitan Airports Commission in April, 1986, to recommend an evaluation of the feasiblity of a noise budget, was based upon the assumptions inherent in the recommendation from the Governor's Task Force. Had this approach been followed, the recommendation would have been for a rollback to the noise levels of August, 1984, which would have produced an 11% reduction in noise energy from the August, 1986, base period. 3. DISTRIBUTIONAL EQUITY In addition to the above concerns relating to the rule as adopted by the majority of the Working Group, it is important to recognize that the proposed rule does not move toward accomplishing the second objective adopted by the Group, that of increasing daytime use of the preferential runway system (PRS). In fact, the Noise Budget approach as adopted by the Working Group may serve to decrease PRS use over time as more quiet aircraft are substituted for noisier aircraft. Under this situation, it is necessary to focus on ways of increasing the capability of the preferential runway system. The proposed extension to Runway 4/22 would provide an increase of between 20 and 30 operations an hour to the capacity of the preferential runway system, and could move substantially toward achievement the distributional equity. The Working Group recognized that the Noise Budget would not provide the desired increase in PRS use, however it failed to specifically endorse any proposal to meet the objective. • Z/LC N SUMMARY Based on the above factors, MAC staff endorses the concept of a noise energy limit as the appropriate noise budget mechanism, and suggests that an 11% reduction in total noise energy from August, 1986 levels be eva- luated by the Commission as an alternative to the proposal of the Working Group. This initial rollback would be consistent with the intent of the Governor's Task Force on aircraft noise, would provide a meaningful reduction in noise exposure to the community, and would stand a higher probablity of suc- cessfully withstanding legal challenges. MAC staff also recommends a second step cutback to average annual noise levels of 1984 be accomplished in June, 1990. This action would provide an additional level of noise reduction for the community over the ensuing three -year time period. Finally, MAC staff recom- mends that the Runway 4/22 extension be integrated into the Noise Budget process to allow the achievement of the second objective, increased day -time use of of the preferential runway system. 11/7/86 ( - )) Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Chairman: Walter Rockensteln, II 6040 28th Avenue South Past Chairs: Jan Del Calzo, 1979 -1982 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Stanley W. Olson, 1969 -1979 (612) 726 -9411 Technical Advisor: Darrell Weslander December 26, 1986 Mayor Bea Blomquist City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mayor Blomquist: On January 27, 1987, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) will devote its entire meeting to the discussion of the "Eagan Corridor" in relation to departing aircraft on Runways 11L,R. On behalf of MASAC, I invite you or a City staff member to attend this meeting and make a brief statement regarding this issue. One aspect you may want to include in your presentation is a definition of Eagan's land use and zoning regulations. In addition, you may wish to include your perception of the "corridor" and why the concept is important to Eagan. Please plan to limit your summary to 15 to 20 minutes as Mendota Heights, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Airports Commission will also be making presentations. The meeting will commence at 7:30 p.m. at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call Steve Vecchi, MASAC Technical Advisor at 726 -1892, or me at 341 -1605. Sincerely, !/ - W Walter H. Rockenstein II Chairman /jv cc: Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 / 1 L -: 111 : - 2 ' %I city of cagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, PO. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH December 30, 1986 VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR KEVIN FRAZELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 750 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 Re: Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Dear Kevin: I understand that some concern has been raised on the part of Mendota Heights council members and residents concerning the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. If I understand the circumstances correctly, the concern pertains to the motivation of the City of Eagan in this regard. Let me assure you that the City of Eagan is standing firmly behind the joint resolution passed by both cities last summer. A copy of that resolution is attached. Let me indicate also that it was not the City of Eagan which requested this meeting. Rather, MASAC Chairman Walter Rockenstein called the meeting because the airport has made substantive changes in the way in which the corridor is being flown without benefit of public participation or comment. They assert that this change was undertaken at the request of the city of Mendota Heights and as a result of its corridor resolution of 1984. Through conversations with Larry Shaughnessy and Bernie Friel and through a review of the resolution and the subsequent MASAC minutes, it appears that the intentions of the parties at that time have been liberally construed to allow for a much broader corridor than that agreed to in the Metropolitan Council - Metropolitan Airports Commission meetings of 1981 which was the basis of the joint resolution. Obviously, it is not the City of Eagan's position that the cities of northern Dakota County can expect to be completely noise free. However, we continue to assert that the worst of the noise impacts should be equitably spread between the two communities in the noise compatible corridor along our common border. The Metropolitan Council assumptions took that into account and it is our position that the airport is not free to unilaterally change the way operations relate to those assumptions or the land uses that are predicated on them. THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY O Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor December 30, 1986 Page Two I fear that the two communities may be encouraged to fight among themselves over an issue which was essentially resolved by the Metropolitan Council five years ago. The City of Eagan would prefer to approach this matter in a concerted, cooperative manner so that the impacts of the extraordinary volume of traffic placed in this area by the preferential runway system can be equitably shared and mitigated by the land use decisions both cities have already made. As I indicated at the outset, the City of Eagan did not request this meeting. However, we have often indicated that we would openly discuss the corridor issue in any forum afforded to us. I do not believe that any person, agency or community has the full picture in this regard. We hope that this proposed forum will allow the issue to be adequately addressed for the foreseeable future. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me. If you would like our Airport Noise Committee Chairman Tom Baker or myself to attend your city council meeting on January 6 to respond to questions, we would be happy to do so. We hope that in the spirit of the joint resolution, we can continue to approach this issue together because to do otherwise may be fatal to the corridor and the neighborhoods which were to be protected by it. Thank you for this opportunity to clarify this issue. Sincerely yours, ( 4141fiAAA* J n Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Bernie Friel, Mendota Heights MASAC Representative Tom Baker, Eagan MASAC Representative Enclosure JDH /jeh Lio\ !9I . . 4 RESOLUTION CITIES OF EAGAN AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA • NO. JOINT RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE PARALLEL RUNWAY OPERATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE EAGAN- MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR WHEREAS, a concerted effort is being made to maximize operations southeast of the airport to reduce the noise impact on more densely populated communities also adjacent to the airport; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have provided a corridor of land uses along their mutual boundary which is largely compatible with overflights by turbojet aircraft operating at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport; and WHEREAS, the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor provides an adequate area of compatible land uses for operations, even when diverging separation is in use; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has expressed a commitment to the maintenance of the corridor as a part of its historical and long -term noise abatement strategy; and WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has repeatedly stressed the need for noise compatible land -uses as a means of accommodating operational noise generation; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights are required by the Metropolitan Council to plan and execute their comprehensive land development - on the basis of the noise zones developed in 1981 and contained within the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide (see Attachment I), said zones having been prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation using operational assumptions, projections and presentations provided by the FAA and the MAC; and WHEREAS, the corridor defined by those noise zones was created and is maintained to accommodate the disproportionate amount of turbojet traffic operating southeast of the airport under the Preferential Runway System (PRS); and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have supported the PRS as a means of providing noise relief for the rest of the airport's neighbors and consider compliance with the corridor to be a means of enhancing the viability of the PRS and in no way intend to restrict or impair the capacity of parallel departures on 11L and 11R; and S0 WHEREAS, there has occurred in recent years a progressive and intolerable pattern of deviations from the operational headings on which the corridor was based, under operational and weather conditions for which their use was prescribed, severely impacting the residential neighborhoods which were to be protected by the development of the corridor and the accomodations of the PRS and its noise abatement measures; and WHEREAS, changes in operations have a broad impact on the planning assumptions of the regional system and should not be undertaken without first assessing such impact in concert with the council of the affected communities and the Metropolitan Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights that the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Federal Aviation Administration, and Air Transport Association be required to maintain all arriving and departing aircraft on Runways 11L and 11R on compass headings consistant with the ground tracks used to formulate the noise zone planning contours of the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide developed in 1981 (Attachment I) and cease all deviations from such headings under VFR conditions except as necessary for reasons of safety; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cities hereby request that the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Federal Aviation Administration provide written notice to the respective Cities and the Metropolitan Council whenever operational changes of a permanent or extended duration are under consideration that would act to shift operations to flight tracks that alter the noise zone boundaries on which the communities' land uses are based. CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS n- i f1, BY: & &_ IL..L'. –=/ By: 44e is Mayo, Its Mayor Attest: Z �aM,� Attest: { �2 Z % /i t ) ` "P ,Z y,� Its rk Ijs Clerk Date: .S • Qo Date: MOTION MADE BY: Councilmember Egan MOTION MADE BY: Councilmember Blesener SECONDED BY: Mayor Blomquist SECONDED BY: Councilmember Hartmann THOSE IN FAVOR: All THOSE IN FAVOR: ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None THOSE OPPOSED: NONE • • • ATTACHMENT I • v � • • ► Rosaviile � . 1 • dals� ! Falcon en . { •..'�2 Valley Figure 0.1 MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL. AIRPORT • AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONES . k:...\li • • L-..,,i Saint Paul . ........_... I i . . , • • SL Lour I Minjipols . _ • • .Park = . . - P 1 • 1 1 ....,, . . • ... • ,tu . • ...... , ......"., ri .... • , . i l i •;• ig %sr • i i /` ``/ � � • West • • o° (%........ ` C r • St. Paul • • Edina L �--V ∎( _' M ndota • • 1 • i� end ota �' ti 1 ( /. / � 1 ` F e�q �I3F1� . . . . . .., . is . / . . ii, ......................., . I d � . i -4. . • o ,)///'■ // „,..\...\..., . /4, Bloon; r o l i Eagan I 1 — a Noise Zones • r ' arer• Existing Runway • • • Existing Airport Property 1 i .1' • • • • .-S� .Administratile Offices igh CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS January 7, 1987 Mr. Walter H. Rockenstein II, Chairman Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Rockenstein: Thank you for letter of December 26 inviting our participation in the upcoming MASAC meeting regarding the Eagan - Mendota Heights corridor. Needless -to -say, aircraft compliance with this designated corridor is an on- going issue in the two communities. Our City Council has asked that this discussion be postponed until the March MASAC meeting. We would like to have the opportunity to get together with Eagan city officials prior to the meeting, to ensure that the two communities agree on the corridor definition and how it should be used. We are also interested in reviewing the updated corridor information being prepared by Howard Needles, et al. Please advise us at your earliest convenience whether it will be possible to postpone the discussion to March. Sincerely, �- Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF:madlr Hohenstein, Eagan 750 South Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • 452 -1850 63 pp t,'91 1 I ,rt to it ' " Y 4aIli c ity ©F eecjan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON December 30, 1986 THEODOREWACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR WALTER ROCKENSTEIN, CHAIRMAN METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 Re: Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Presentations, January 27, 1987 Dear Rocky: Pursuant to standard procedure for public meetings, the City of Eagan respectfully requests that the agencies involved in the Eagan - Mendota Heights corridor issue, namely the MAC and FAA, be scheduled to present their positions on the corridor first and that the cities and other interested parties be allowed to present after the agencies. I hope you will find this arrangement to be acceptable. If you have any questions about it, please contact me. Please confirm the schedule of presentations at least ten days prior to the meeting. I am also in the process of discussing mutual interests with the City of Mendota Heights. I understand that certain individuals in Mendota Heights have expressed concern that this may be an attempt on the part of the City of Eagan to focus an unfair amount of traffic on the Mendota Heights side. As I have discussed with you in the past, this is clearly not our intent. Rather, we hope to focus the worst of all impacts near the middle of the corridor. The issue is one of equity and operational ability. If certain interests allow the discussion to degenerate into one of either Eagan or Mendota Heights or South Minneapolis, the airport will continue to do precisely as it pleases and will point to the inability of the cities to reach consensus as justification for their actions. You do not want that and neither do we. I should also tell you that it is our assertion that this entire discussion was held five years ago when the MC -MAC Committee arrived at its recommendations for land use compatibility. A consensus was reached at that time. That consensus took into account aggregate noise impacts along specific departure and \ THE LONE OAK TREE. THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY / 5/ Presentations for January 27, 1987 December 30, 1986 Page Two arrival headings. Not all operations were expected to take place at the middle of the corridor, but the worst of the noise impact was placed there. Given their participation in that process, it is dangerous for the airport to assert that the cities were in any way shortsighted simply because they followed the mutually established Metropolitan Council standards. In point of fact, such a position completely ignores the obligation of the MAC to accurately describe future operational standards when it fully understood that relatively permanent land use standards were being promulgated on the basis of their representations. All that aside, I look forward to the City's opportunity to assert facts on its behalf on January 27. If you have any questions about the request enclosed in this letter, please contact me. Please be advised that I have discussed the potential for a meeting of the concerned communities and yourself with City Administrator Frazell of Mendota Heights and I hope to have such a meeting in the near future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, () ,476;k101.06: 4313 on Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights J DH/ j eh � u r i r C .Y 'a=v ;Il<« C t ©F eCgcln 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON December 30, 1986 THEODOREWACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR JEFF HAMIEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 Re: Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Research Dear Jeff: On behalf of the City of Eagan, I request that the following information be compiled and forwarded to us in anticipation of the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. To provide adequate time to review this information, please have it to our office by January 16. In particular, please send us copies of the following: 1. All FAA operational orders in effect from 1972 through 1986 including its language pertinent to the Eagan- Mendota Heights departure corridor. 2. All minutes and correspondence pertinent to the change from a 110 degree left turn standard to a 105 degree left turn standard between 1974 and 1981. 3. All MAC and MASAC minutes covering official action on the corridor, including: A. Discussion and /or acceptance of the noise abatement operations plan including its approval in 1981. B. Mendota Heights complaints to MASAC concerning corridor use in 1982. C. Mendota Heights corridor resolution in 1984. D. Eagan corridor and operations resolution in 1984. E. Eagan corridor resolution in 1985. 4. All MC -MAC minutes and reports including final report and land use compatibility contours. THE LONE OAK TREE.. THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY / Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor December 30, 1986 Page Two If you or your staff has any difficulty in compiling this information, please contact me at your earliest opportunity. As I am sure you are aware, the City is attempting to approach this situation in a constructive rather than confrontive manner. We believe that if the airport reviews what its own consultants are saying about the worst impacts of noise in the Eagan - Mendota Heights area, that some means can be found to place the worst of that impact at the corridor's center. This community recognizes that both sides of the corridor will always get some noise, but we insist that the corridor be used in the way in which it was designed to spread noise equitably and place the worst of it where compatible land uses can absorb it. As you are aware, the City of Eagan is acutely aware of its role in noise abatement for the metropolitan area. Neither our responsibility to meet this need nor your responsibility to promote policies which most equitably treat those exposed to noise in Dakota County are temporary. We have a long term responsiblity to our citizens and to the region and so do you. The City looks forward to continuing to work with the airport to resolve these issues. The airport is important to our economy just as it is to that of the entire region, but polluting industries have an obligation to mitigate negative impacts on all of their neighbors, they do not absolve themselves by simply maximizing their adverse impacts on the smallest constituency. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, 9 r.:31JLAII% Yon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Senator Rudy Boschwitz Senator Dave Durenberger Representative Bill Frenzel Senator Howard Knutson Representative Art Seaberg Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council Dave Kelso, MPCA Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights Walter Rockenstein, Chairman of MASAC JDH /jeh 57 L Y�i r tR 1 I , _, k`. Mt city ©F ccigcin 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.0. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator December 30, 1986 EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR NIGEL FINNEY METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 Re: Review of HNTB Differential Contour Analysis Dear Nigel: As you will recall, I requested an opportunity to review the results of the Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff study on the corridor on behalf of all interested communities and agencies in advance of the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. It is essential that communities be able to review that information which best addresses the issue of equity in the concentration of departure traffic along certain headings. It is the City's firm belief that the differential analysis will reveal that the most equitable distribution of all noise impacts will occur if departures are undertaken between five and ten degrees north of runway center line. However, we cannot support or modify that assertion without an opportunity to review the contour analysis. All we can prove is that the current situation unnecessarily concentrates the worst impacts of all noise at the southern edge of the corridor and recognize only the relationship of operations to compatible land use and not their noise impacts to the same land use. As you are well aware, the noise envelope of departures extends far to each side of the critical track on departure and an optimum departure track mix must take that into account. Please respond at your earliest opportunity so that all interested communities and agencies, including the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency might be able to review the information ten days prior to the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. I have received a verbal indication from Evan Futterman that this time frame is reasonable. If you have any THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY sT HNTB Differential Contour Analysis December 30, 1986 Page Two questions about this request or anticipate any difficulties in meeting it, please contact me within five days. I appreciate your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, on Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights Bob Schaefer, City of Inver Grove Heights Walter Rockenstein, MASAC Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council Dave Kelso, MPCA J DH /j eh .69 • t MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1986 SUBJECT: COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR JANUARY 27, 1987 MASAC MEETING The City of Eagan has received a request that it make presentation regarding its position on the Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor at the MASAC meeting on January 27, 1987. MASAC Chairman Walter Rockenstein has been following our discussions with the MAC and FAA. He believes that MASAC, as a party to the original corridor agreements, should hear presentations from all concerned parties and take a position in the issue. The City has often asserted that it is willing to air this issue in the appropriate forum. In this circumstance, Mr. Rockenstein appears willing to provide such an opportunity, if the City considers this an appropriate forum. Each city and agency will be given fifteen to twenty minutes to make its case. I would anticipate that those presenting would be the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights, the FAA and MAC. Mr. Rockenstein may make presentation on behalf of the City of Minneapolis if he sees our position in conflict with Minneapolis' interests. I intend to approach Chauncy Case of the Metropolitan Council to determine whether that agency would be willing to address the issue from the perspective of its regional land planning implications. If the City wishes to use this opportunity to represent its interests in this regard, I would propose the following work plan. Week 6 -3 Meetings with John Voss and Dale Runkle to define information and graphic needs. Week 5 Request additional information from MAC. Week 5 -2 Meetings with Mendota Heights, Metropolitan Council and Rockenstein to address positions and common interests. Week 4 Draft Position Statement Week 2 Meeting with Mendota Heights, Metropolitan Council, MAC, FAA, and Rockenstein to review HNTB analysis of corridor use impacts. Week 1 Final Presentation Preparation. In addition, I would suggest the basic position outlined below. I. Land Use and Evolution of the Corridor A. Standard procedures have changed over time. The City requested a left turn procedure as an accomodation for the impact of the Preferential Runway System. Various agencies and the City agreed to a 105 degree standard as the best means of using the corridor. B. The left turn departure track modification became the standard on which the Metropolitan Council and the Cities based their planning. C. This accomodation is necessary to offset the impacts of Prefernetial Runway System concentrations of traffic. II. Recent Developments A. Operations have flown beyond the accepted parameters on both sides of the corridor. B. The FAA has unilaterally altered departure procedures without regard for City and Metropolitan land planning. C. Evidence does not support the need for such a change, nor does it reveal that any official action requested it. ( 0 III. Logical Approach to Corridor Procedures - Two issues: A. First, when diverging separation is not necessary, it is obvious that operations should be directed to the middle of the corridor at or about 105 degrees. B. Second, when it is necessary to diverge, impacts of all operations should be considered. Corridor use should be optimized by placing the worst of the impacts, as shown by the Integrated Noise Model contours, equidistant from the residential neighborhoods on either side. C. If there were a noise compatible corridor in Minneapolis, an effort would be made to place the worst of its impacts near its middle. Eagan and Mendota Heights have such a corridor and its use should be optimized but not abused. IV. Summary ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Approval or direction on the use of this forum to address the corridor and, if appropriate, approval or direction on the proposed Action Plan and Position Outline. I can be available for the City Council Meeting on Tuesday at or about 9:00 pm and after to respond to questions on this item. l Ad inistrative Assistant Friday, Dec. 26, 1986 St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch F 1 3A Noise/ Dakota County complains Continued from Page 11A "If you compare the situation in port's assistant manager for noit:e Two primary factors have �� There is more 1970 with today, there has been a abatement, before adding the criti- brought Dakota County more into and more noise huge shift of activity from the cal phrase "if the tower and the I the anti -noise limelight. off the parallels, north to the south." cities could work out that prob- First, the Minnesota River acts period. 3 5 Some of that activity can be ac- hem." as something of a buffer between p commodated as northern Dakota City officials around the metro- the airport and the county, and air- Steve Cramer County continues to develop. But politan area are wary of the exten- planes can travel southeast at least Minneapolis City Council even airline officials know that lion and the chance of it simply two miles before flying over resi- will not be enough, and are putting opening the door to more traffic deuces. Therefore, the Federal their stock in a long -term plan to volume. But some of them at least Aviation Administration control longtime members are acknowl- spread a thinner layer of noise feel that in the coming months, tower increasingly tries to have ar- edging the burden of their col- around by expanding the diagonal their voices will be heard more rivals, which are quieter, come in leagues to the south. runway. than they have been in the past. ovcr South Minneapolis, and "The people really getting the "The extension would help, but "Thu has been percolating for 15 noisier departures head out toward bulk of the traffic are in Dakota in the short term that Eagan corri- years," Hohenstein said. "Our situ - Dakota County. County in the southeast," Richfield dor is the best place to put depar- ation is just cunning to the surface For example, in mid -1985, about representative Donald Priebe said. tures," said Steve Vecchi, the air- more now." 35 percent of the departures and - about 55 percent of the arrivals at the airport occurred over Dakota County. By mid -1986, about 60 per- cent of the departures and about 40 .er ac•. ;;w:. 1"1" percent of the arrivals occurred over Dakota County. Even with the ; ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS DISPATCH • river buffer, that is a significant increase both in volume and tnten- siry. The second factor has been a de- : It a ota. Coun bate about the parameters of a corridor fur airplane travel along the Eagan and Mendota Heights s border. The corridor is a theorem- b y ns f'I"Uy over cal roadway for airplanes, and y's J o p1 tit the early 1970s, the roadway's southern border basically was an extension Ea nsion of the southern noise .t aim' .�oit — At that tune, Eagan n asked asked t the control tower to begin shifting flights slightly north to avoid some By Thomas B. Koetting residential devulopment, said tow- Y er assistant Dick Peterson. The ,Stall Writer • control tower complied, and over the years, Eagan officials believed Northern Dakota County, long one of the more pas- the turn was permanent. That be- sive recipients of airport air traffic noise, is starting lief was reinforced by long -term to make some noise of its own. Metropolitan Council planning guides, which followed air traffic Historically, negative reaction to airport noise has patterns that included the slight come from South Minneapolis, where houses are turn. clustered literally off the tips of Minneapolis -St.. Paul However, Peterson said in- International Airport's two parallel runways. creased traffic has taken away the ' The large number of houses, combined with the po- tower's flexibility, and the slight turn has been abandoned during iitical clout of the state's largest city, have at least heavy hours. He said it never was produced headlines if not always results. permanent. . As air traffic has increased in the half -dozen years But Eagan officials claim they since airline industry deregulation, use of the parallel zoned and developed land under the procedure. The situation is sim- runways has become unavoidable throughout most of ilar to a road being widened alter the day. The lone diagonal runway, which faces St. someone was allowed to build right Paul and Richfield, has been virtually useless in pro- to the curb. viding relief because it cannot be used in conjunction "The best solution is to put the noise down the middle of the corri- with both parallel runways. dor as it existed with the turn, and . That means South Minneapolis has been getting then you, won't get complains," nailed in the noise department, and it also means Hohenstein said. "Given the chanc- es of trying to change the status of there is at least as much if not more traffic off the whole neighborhoods that are al- other end — pointing at Eagan, Mendota Heights and jwufy built. it seet s to me they Inver Grove Heights. could alter their flight patterns." Each side has reaps of docu- ' "The important point is. that northern Dakota Coun- mens to back up is position, and ty needs to be thought of as a single conceptual coin - they will get a chance to explain their views at the Jan. 27 meeting munity, ,. said Jon Hohenstein, an Eagan city staff of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound member who has been the city's representative on air - Abatement Council. port noise issues. That council, which has been Minneapolis City Council member Steve Cramer, weighted with representation from Minneapolis and St. Paul, increas- whose constituency lies in one of the worst -hit areas ingly has become aware of north- for noise, agreed. "There is more and more noise off ern Dakota County's integral role the parallels, period," he said. in the noise question. Membership rules were eased so that. Inver Please see Noise /Page 13A Gruv. Heights and Burnsville rep- . resentatives could vote, and Some / BILL FRENZEL MINNESOTA OFFICE THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA ROOM 445 8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH WASHINGTON OFFICE BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 -'326 1026 LONGWORTH BUILDING 612- 881-4600 202 - 225 -2871 QCongre5fi of the Einiteb tate55 ouOe of 3aepresSentatibtO afibington, IBC 20515 -2303 December 18, 1986 Mr. Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Hohenstein: Thank you for your recent letter following up on our noise abatement correspondence. I recently received the enclosed two communications, one from the FAA, the other from MAC. I will monitor the results of Eagan's discussions of the matter with those agencies. As I have indicated, I hope that all parties will make a good faith effort at reconciling their differences, and that progress can be made in a cooperative and expeditious manner. I appreciate your continued efforts. Please continue to keep me advised of your activities, and to let me know whenever I may be of help. Yours very truly, Bill Frenzel Member of Congress BF:dj encl 3 THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS 1• • T\Z • Cc Pam METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 11700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 -1892 ,- _ November 14, 1986 Mr. Bill Frenzel CE.0 0 i Member of Congress Room 445 8120 Penn Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 Dear Representative Frenzel: Metropolitan Airports Commission Chairman Raymond G. Glumack has asked that I respond to your letter of November 3, 1986 concerning aircraft noise issues and the aircraft corridor over Eagan. For the last several months Cor>inission staff has been meeting with John Hohenstein and representatives of the city of Eagan regarding the use of the arrival /departure corridor over north Eagan and south Mendota Heights. During these discussions the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has conducted an extensive on -site survey of aircraft operations and the adherence of the FAA in following recommended procedures. Following completion of this survey MAC staff held several meetings with representatives of the FAA discussing problems identified by the survey. I am confident that Tower Chief Doug Powers is taking all the necessary actions to correct any lack of adherence to agreed operational procedures. Further, my staff continues to randomly monitor operations through the corridor. The issue that seems to be the most controversial is defining the specific location of the corridor. We at the airport have always viewed the corridor as being the extended center line of runway 11R looking toward the southeast and up to a heading of 090 degrees off the heading of runway 11L. While Lhis iiuiy seen[ confusing, the attached diagram clearly identifies the arrival /departure corridor. During the last 15 years the Commission has also attempted to encourage the FAA to direct aircraft toward the center of the corridor, thereby reducing noise impact for residents of north Eagan while still maintaining distance from residents of south Mendota Heights. As traffic levels increase there has been a greater frequency of aircraft taking off simultaneously making it impossible to direct aircraft toward the center of the corridor on converging headings. In fact, FAA regulations require that aircraft taking off simultaneously on parallel runways must maintain at least a 15 degree divergent heading. As a result of increased traffic levels we still operate within the corridor but during peak hours operate along the south edge of the corridor to avoid potential conflict with aircraft along the adjacent runway. As recently as yesterday I spoke with Mr. Powers of the tower and we are continuing to develop a program that will attempt to keep aircraft north of the localizer and away from north Eagan residents as often as possible. OFFICE LOCATION -6040 29th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AR /A-MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 7., The Commission recognizes the contribution of the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights in zoning this land for commercial use and protecting our future operations. We will continue to work closely with both cities in doing the very best we can in providing acceptable use of the corridor and working toward an improved environment for our neighbors. I completely agree with you that MAC's adherence to the corridor is , critical and I can assure you that we are working toward maximum adherence while at the same time maintaining the highest levels of safety. Thank you for your concern regarding this serious matter. erely, 10/.40.711( ` eff.,-y W. Hamiel Executive Director J H:gm 6 L 1718 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ;� rl� I oyar a c gf e �� A . w- Mitml ,�. ..: S...4.z... ri MP** .�ppTWiAr�1.Yt '.2 1Itiii` Fral f."k' :� � gb • •i •+y k t44 . + , tr fi r . . 11 '�"is a F ∎ s i_I�„�Ir 11�.. B n1 k '� 9[ ►.•, • - + -."" \� �il�u.r. • 11� 1 t ws .eni rr 1'�- . �;•.r =- : .a. .�- i..� .. . ...e. e: C!::��YF.�.:�.+IG. ►�Im�$�1� a.1. I`. �� . $�:.T� �- r•�.w��..... �iia C r t. affiiii r A sww'a: i I.i�`41: ni v It 1rei l'lle n_re --1= o l -iai rarw.seg � w .�. I �att �� - Jt� �"+ �) �.� .� � ..1111.■ . � .�� s �_ =_- � a.r v_.wo .M. _ � - �■-k ..� n x'.11 i ..... 1117 c .r ww.r ..�.._ t!rt�i4unti�1�1. -= — �t��. ..: .a... aff wY�. �1�1�it��- !! ��.- �e.e.a ��.�I� r • E nun iBIlA1Bl6nipul �� = =wlal� innIn ' V1Ot.ii 3� Wi g = ,, �rg r� Mra= " ... ' 1 . % . 'I1 us i1U ■ ne I: i" 1 uw u is i ni 1.111 IL. Id s 111. yo5 = . ....I, ,1■1u' » r a.' Auinn nnginlu[i11U1umI nPm1i nmilin Imn ► timo: ,� 4Rrw":':.�.:� =5 ^ ==�- E ■p �/ uln si iiumintr ��;;n�n as.'eum sm nee ••• Insr ainn19 MI Ilgge� =El =: ' rms. .,ine • m MUM MY II Itl1O W 11■.I1.Y � MU i wa M r..� :ia assn sum MO :� q[ p A rap aim wir I mi u 1 m i Inill mini 111 : \ =illa ;r :.�..o .. . - � F p Mini waist i wohl i1 Aim i u �•, • ammo IN.. •e.-. _ . � t� 11 ll ��ll 7i!IIUI 1I116111gII ►� �.. !•••_•••• �!""! F 1Tai i�r.�� M■In EMU UNIVI WMR I Z:MU Siff■ luisral was es�A1■■WU.lufl!■rlu terms � RM lMITL. ELM ME E � .� W E ME i !�w 9m: RM11en1111s1R I ,■I I i lu�p� Ii lnilifwin . .: : = . � ; ��", � � G � vinttt1n111/11Yn1 111111U IIIn11111Yn.*I Lil11 I111111111t1111111 m....r- ..rs.w a'- -'"� -� o.. • G 11 lu1I RBI ...... -r..,_ -_ . at 1e�a ww I IYIiIIIgYIga e■I ► i11o f11U111u1n n. ■■ Ire ■.o �- .,,a,.�1 f q!I uluIR!fWSPII 115111 '111111111M /IOf!ICIO 11SIU*IUP1■IPr . T, Mw -� ��mong ALo=g.e• rs=P H IMMIIgIUnInE11161iuu1111 ;iii.iY17EGIl Zia a 1(ili `>,1Y�A41111t IA I .-mlir- ..- ..-'k grAt ..�.. - r. ._ u H ��iira I igglnWiBuuiiu iiuHlIM uI IU 1 DhIl111116 iiT �� .` ` � rte= � m4 rpm,aammi a Erman n■ maim IMITM ■ MIR a .I■■.II.. eV, m - CM! ..IG._� al:.. .so �.ra::7t_ VI IIINInnn 1E1 mpg.. MUM g�n 11gn111111IeI M 111111111111 I M1. HUN r ,_,..... _ li. —is,. .Cn "eourittimi wm MI INMIlll@ �� um IWH d111gi Oils 1ninin11nIIN Min IIN . "11111111nnl tua ii1mg=C' au w �0iiii rinniK n � y !;r, uuu urmimi1 WI■■Imn liliir■i■.■1■i u.vt.iu. uu... ww�.�-. rK- �""r +'�' R• I 1 1 1 I . M Igg11qun111un11111B1 11 11 / iJu1/1R111111 IuIII X l`1N1111111 lail ° �w� 1 1 11nI aR'--f orre /Ui L'IO� 1n1111n1IIIII uu u11u1HIW1- . 'wunlU°°- !uIwxB■7 11t! MM�• d•m�e7-+.i w ■■l..rs a.1� . ri�illl< Io�IIs IuU.■IH... I.N.I. .ip. ■tI■.M1...11.1 . ...- ..IIN .1..ir- +. K 1JN111 " rrai 1U11IN111nnt 1111111 IIIg111\ INTA l.+�r� -"-.� A ME1n1 °-SC •"'� r: an 1 . .NI...u�IlatNw a . o.w.w m '. � .l un nllUllfn4l lkinnt9 atti111as ri � n on gam � e t r , L al_II_°- _u-�UI 'enn in IHIwul!Ulut M _ � itMllMa ^T+ "" L 'i11� S i- L . ■Nillu..G. .Na..�ii — 1.191It► I.swa.. -nn •� .rer...- t. w � a..•i . �. s. 1�A Ia n n g Mn sV rM i ne.. s Algl' :IIInlnllii ■, _un muttauss�i N.�4 I Om Neu � AI Ittir. t NI®ii81� 1 et_�r.k ► � e ms • , LI .! m ..w.N.w .r....ltr>Z�U r i:. n.rw.- i .s, � p, . �. I v trw 1aum igll ram nn 1t 11111w'.511 1 i I1111n1Q�i. ` . ri MM r r � 4 1 -s N p tim MI wa mg w NI . !! im nuu � scmunumW.Mt= a1 " 1�r A04E0 `. ri ...L._...011 O N p�p FM qMi I WM .- = Neill ii ii 1111O. • arl III 115111 1[11@_. I' 1u.n.n. : • a ti 0 P 1 fi. '1 r 1 1n h 1 Iln�l�e� ST: .71 • _.a' Mil P el l' 0IIr 1gE1Y ul- -IIAgin i la i`ica. .da 't�.: am prveq s.. .e.• It= %.4∎1 NMIMM .i — �M."" -r` �••c,,�, _ Vie.- .. :�. r �� .w.>!r1 Q ISMIAMI WMM' I.l , "n s 49 .. �_SE ,. gl w7 r Q 0. I f�.ilwulnl' MIINneiaGaii t nv 1I:I°r • i , irg alai. =' ' !inBE Mil 1fiiii saso E 111111111141iMIMS� EN +_:. ' IMM MIN I • • tlM. p�111g111�1111F�14�41 AInIpII111N It11 ;�� s a1�u1�e01 r�trnlfewl11u5i;liec��lliiR _ j WIMIO1114 .a. s nim "R�Elmnry jegw�i.1n1:� ..... ..I•l..1.1 �m imrunnun � _ i�ll wlinmil [111 1a111� ° , •. V f1 4 1 wirzt {4. T Vra V PM11 '" i 1n nilit iiiii ril \7 0 monNanum l u+nitllt4l 111oat111nrN i s �,��11� C��I ®� 090 - .— warm.m w ar.-arrne.. cc.w..—... ew owntask - / -.• . _ .��. d e w. ma pp iilis.�iii - wi s' i'i nis ii �ln��..:tw — ,. = �tl El Elm ppikring um _ tmllOtai sin is MM. NM WIWI IIMI PROMARAM1311111111•IMIIIIIIRim■micaCr2111•P POO VAC AM PM 11101 WO ■ q IM : NOISE Ir. � .. ;y �1►+ MONITORING f at � Y N � �� i� rll inua i � "`. e FA _. GRID LOCATIONS a � _ .I� �� i* ' r' iiAILSER' EIII .a 11■1�IlilFII 1111 UE tt It. '� — z � liVEINplllENIWIII® MON Surrounding 7d� ® � � ` � �� p �' Minna Its /St. Paul AA A A M ME 1,� 1� II19 I�� International Airport 1985 ` � � �� 1160 t ®.®s "r"7i17 r'�°"r" BB G !l nat i��Ili � . Ar l iliil MIII ! gists CC ERE 1 ' !�i�i1 h �1SM EM. r i®IIIIIIN CC �II� Ii11I1l1@E1111t1ilttt 11.11. U p//17.� �"'gggeqq DD na[I �I� ME �PE!�a�i�i�ral DD EE EI PIEL.MMMME O.ELMi� u MiEM% EE FF II!•u MMINEEIM 'I E rilE NIII®IIIN® FF GGIE®ENZEIMENN®�� INIMMIIUEU GG HH - l� MUM M•IliEl EOM Pa I ENE ! .gist ! HH 11 111111111111111M111111 III w2- mg.131►_�1''4.10.1■ 1l1M1 raiiiimotmiggaam f � ESi WIWM 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 6(..0 fo; U.S. Department Great Lakes Region 2300 East Devon Avenue of Transportation Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 Minnesota, North Dakota, Federal Aviation Ohio, South Dakota, Administration Wisconsin D O 0 9 1985 Honorable vial Frenzel House of Representatives : a hirlgton, LX 0515 `fir Mr. Frenzel: This is in response to your letter of Lovenber 3, 1986, to r. Doug Powers, ;fir `.traffic ranager of the € inneapoliz"s /,St. Paul international Airport Trakfic Control rtb ter (NSP ?rf. CP) , an behalf of Er. don Ho aonstain, Administrative Assistant ant nor the City of Eagan, IN. :inclosed is a copy of a letter elated Mavaaber 5, 1936, and copies of associated documentation from Mr. flohenstein to ar. Powers. The letter to Er. Iti:Ter`i addresses the subject of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adherence to slight tracks contained within the Eagan- -rencio a Heights Departure Corridor, which Iir. fohenstein described to you in a letter dated October 6, 1486. Hr. iiohenstein ;states that most recently, y, the personnel at r SP Aur r have taken unilateral action to adjust standard departures to the south, thus cmating can intolerable situation for these communities. Pe assure you and Mr. Hohenztein that no such Change has taken race, nor is such a change .Inticipated. n :o current departure procedurt. applied bJ personnel at MSP ATCT, remain consistent istent with agranuents explained in the documentation provided by Mr. Hohenstein. Page 21 of Mr. Uohenstein's documentation p ckage depicts baseline contours for the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 study conducted for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Triis depiction was generated using g t:he FM Integrated Noiae. nodal (INN). The noise contours are bawd upon ground track and are aligned with the Generalized runway tracks, obtained from survejs off the radar :copes at rl;P &LCtt. In using this depiction, the F garr- ikundota Heights De ar sure Corridor can be vi:;i1Ii l ized as bounded on the south generalizes track of runway 11 right (saaetimes referred to in the documentation as the runway 29 left Localizor Course) and bounded on the north by a 090 degree bearing, which is left of the generalized track of runway 11 left. (,r7 r • 4 r ;.l, current noise abatement procedures applied by personnel at i $P ATC1, for noise sensitive aircraft departing on runway 11 left or runway 11 right, is to ;,• an asoir,•ned heading ding o_ 103 degrees, when other traffic is not a factor. This • onoi tent with noise abatement agreements described in the enclosed ocui 1e 1oation from Mr. Hohenst ein. The 10,E degree assigned heading provides a :;t..,''T_r. r of 5 degrees or more from the north and south h bounc aries of the • c:rturae corridor, unless an excessive wind condition causes the aircraft to drift away from the intended ground tract. As indicated above, the noire abatement procedures applied by LISP A`1.tur have not changed. "'iie requirement of air traffic control to separate aircraft as a first priority hz s no : changed either. What has change=d is the traffic volume :: t. the airport. Ali the documentation provided by iir. i'ohen:3tein refers to a period of time w ,gin traffic volume at t ha airport was at least 33% less than current levels. ` e nunstantidil increase of traffic requires a sirault'oneous use of parallel " departures. Then e 11 left and 11 right are in �t.+; for arrivals and +'C1�r ii?"C..3 `: 1 I": L'LL!° �i.T3 use, it is not posnihie to issue each departure aircraft a standard 105 degree iA adinq to protect the boundaries of the departure corridor. To do 60 would cause umC ue delays to other arrival and departure aircraft. To accommodate this volume of traffic during busy tine periods, the separation criteria for successive departures requires that assigned headings, consistent with the entire departure corridor, be issued. Admittedly, this will place some deoar sure aircraft on a ground track over both the southern and northern boundaries of the departure corridor. However, the integrity of the departure corridor and our commitment ment to previous agreements ; continue to be maintained. I• We, in the FAA, are very concerned about aircraft noise and assure you that we continue to consult with local cx raunities in regard to reducing the noise impact :t:roca aircraft operations at the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. Our long association with members of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Datropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatai.tent Council (fASAC), is indicative of our desire to accoiitplish this role. fir. Powers and Hr.'. Frank ]3en2on, Manager of the Iiinneapolis/ t. Paul Airports District Office, are committed to enhancing this relationship. If Mr. Hoh.nstein would like further clarification on this matter, we encourage hire to contact Mr. Powers and I:r. Frank Denson. Ile also encourage r. ;Iohunstein to obzorve the air traffic operation from the OSP AT CT facility. Thies would help to create a better understanding and provide evidence that the current procedures in use are consistently applied to honor noire abatement agreements. Please let us knew if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By r rri rr_R Paul K. !',ohr Director, Great Lakes Region Enclosure 62 ' . ' .. :ti J •p y 1'Iti Cat19 ©F ccgan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.0. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members December 24, 1986 THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk REPRESENTATIVE BILL FRENZEL 1026 LONGWORTH BUILDING U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON D.C. 20515 -2303 Re: Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Dear Congressman Frenzel: I just received your correspondence of the 18th covering the two communications from the FAA and the MAC concerning the corridor. I appreciate the opportunity to review this information and would like to offer just a few comments in their regard. With respect to the correspondence of Mr. Hamiel, several items need to be clarified. The first is his assertion that the airport has "always viewed the corridor as being the extended center line of Runway 11R . . . and up to a heading of 090 degrees off the heading of Runway 11L." Historically, the extended runway center line has been recognized as a generalized border for the worst of the noise impact and not a boundary of operations while the 090 degree heading has been an operational standard. Moreover, as Mr. Hamiel asserts, FAA regulations require 15 degrees between simultaneous departures. The 090 degree operational standard was established simply because it is 15 degrees north of the 105 degree operational standard which did define the operational boundary to the south. The corridor, as defined by Mr. Hamiel, is at least 26 degrees wide, while diverging separation should require approximately 15 degrees to accommodate simultaneous departures. In addition, Mr. Hamiel's map understates the operational size of the corridor to the north while failing to give any consideration to the noise impacts of aggregate operations. It is, in point of fact, the noise impact and not simply the operational boundaries which are at issue here. Only a brief review of the MAC's own documentation for the FAR Part 150 Study shows that the worst of the impact is concentrated to the south side of the corridor and its adjacent neighborhoods while certain areas of compatible land use north of the middle of the corridor are under utilized. THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY / 6 9 December 24, 1986 Page Two In reference to Mr. Bohr's letter, a brief review of the attached Noise Abatement Programs will show that his information is inaccurate. A comparison of the 1984 and 1985 documents show a clear and obvious change in the noise abatement procedure for Mendota Heights and Eagan, when diverging separation is in use. Essentially, the 1985 change broadens the corridor by 11 degrees from 105 degrees to 116 degrees. Apparently, Mr. Bohr did not have the benefit of these documents when he drafted his letter, especially since he asserts in the second paragraph of the second page that "the noise abatement procedures applied by MSP ATCT have not changed." Since the policy has changed, the clear implication is that procedures have changed as well. Mr. Bohr is correct in his assertion that traffic volume has been a significant element in the changing noise situation. However, he implies that the current noise situation derives from an increased number of aircraft following established flight tracks. As shown by the attached, this is not accurate. He further asserts that "to accommodate this volume of traffic during busy time periods, the separation criteria for successive departures requires that assigned headings, consistent with the entire departure corridor be used." Like Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Bohr is considering only the way in which discrete operations relate to the corridor without benefit of a full analysis of the noise impact of aggregate operations. Again, a simple review of the Part 150 Study documents indicate that the worst of the noise impact is being focused at the south edge of the corridor and not near its middle. These matters of clarification aside, I do wish to raise one objection relating to Mr. Bohr's tendency to address his explanation to me and not to the City of Eagan. In point of fact, as a staff member, I merely represent the wishes of the City Council and its concerned constituency. I will continue to act as staff person on this matter, but it is essential that all parties understand that staff is operating on behalf of the City as a whole and that the City has a long committment to reasonable and prudent action in this regard. The City is not prepared, in the face of this correspondence, to modify its position. Again, the City does not expect you to serve as arbiter in this issue. It does appreciate your diligence in representing its interests and in generating these responses despite the limitations outlined above. As you may know, this matter will be discussed at the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council meeting on January 27, 1987. Please be assured that the City of Eagan is approaching this from the December 24, 1986 Page Three standpoint of developing a constructive solution and one in the best interest of its neighbors and the region. However, the City will insist that facts be portrayed accurately and that the historical committment of the City to land side noise abatement be recognized in a reasonable way. Again, best wishes for the holidays. If you or your staff has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Paul K. Bohr Jeff Hamiel Enclosures JDH /jeh ')D ''');.5/1/84 .jar Qi+6 11 ..0.1U r / • PART V RUNWAY USE PROGRAM - NOISE ABATEMENT 1. PURPOSE. To define noise abatement procedures for Minneapolis International Airport aining to all turbo jets and all non - turbojet Group IV and V aircraft. -- 2. BACKGROUND. The control of air traffic in accordance with aircraft noise abatement programs is secondary only to considerations of safety. Such programs • developed in the public interest may, in some cases, cause operational penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, this informal runway use program was developed in order to reduce the aircraft noise problem in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 3. ACTION. The issuance of air traffic control instructions relating to noise abatement for all turbojet aircraft and all other Group IV and V aircraft shall be in accordance with the following procedures: a. Vector arriving aircraft at 4,000 feet MSL or higher until intercepting the glidepath unless a particular situation dictates otherwise. b. Whenever the normal landing pattern is over Highland or the south Minneapolis area, a noise sensitive message shall be added to the ATIS infomation. c. When the parallel runways are in use for departing aircraft, the following air carriers: Northwest, Ozark, Continental, Western, American and Midway shall use the south parallel 11R /29L to the extent possible with existing traffic and airport conditions. d. As traffic conditions permit, and in conjunction with procedures stated below, comply with the following runway priority giving first priority or noise relief to departure noise: Takeoff Landing 11L and 11R 29L and 29R 22 4 29L and 29R 11L and 11R 4 22 Note: Changes in the nature of noise complaints dictate giving first priority of noise relief to departure noise. (1) Runway conditions - clear and dry (i.e., there is no ice, slush, etc., which might make use of a noise abatement runway undesirable). (2) Wind velocity does not exceed 15 knots. (3) Any crosswind component does not exceed 90 from either side of the center line of the runway in use whenever the wind velocity is five knots or more. 5/1/84 a Note: Best discretion shall be used in determining traffic conditions. e. To accomplish the noise abatement procedures, cross runway operations are often required. However, it is not required when visibility is one mile or less and /or traffic conditions are determined by the person in charge to be heavy. f. The preferential runway(s) in use shall be the determining factor in approving or disapproving a touch - and -go, stop- and -go, or low approach. • g. Requests for a circling approach, by turbojet aircraft, for training shall be denied by the controller. h. All helicopters requesting ASR approaches shall be accommodated in accordance with preferential runway procedures. i. Mendota Heights /Eagan procedures. (1) Departures on 11R and 11L shall: (a) be issued heading 105 which will insure that aircraft will remain clear of the Mendota /Eagan noise sensitive areas unless minimum diverging headings are needed to separate successive or parallel departures not on the same route. (b) When diverging separation is in use, it shall be used based upon the following criteria: 1 Runway 11R - a heading between 090 and 105 only 2 Runway 11L - a heading between 090 and runway heading only (c) Proceed on the heading assigned until at least three miles from the departure end of the runway. (d) When requested by the pilot of a Group IV or V turboprop, be issued headings and turns which prohibit flight over these noise sensitive areas (i.e., river departures). (2) Aircraft south of runway 29L localizer arriving on 29L and 29R shall be vectored to at least a 4 -mile final. When issuing a visual approach clearance to these arrivals, the pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4 -mile, (i.e., "cleared visual approach runway 29L, make at least a 4 -mile final ") j. Aircraft departing on runway 22 and making a right turn shall: (1) be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 feet (MSL). (2) not be issued a heading greater than 350 until past the 11L localizer course. k. During quiet hours (11:00 p.m. til 6:00 a.m.) the use of runways 11L for landings and departures and 29R for departures is prohibited for all types of aircraft, unless an emergency situation requires use of these runways. ' / :' 5/1/84 MSP ATCT 7110.4B (1) Due to the noise characteristics of the BE -18 ( "Twin Beech ") and similar "noisy" types of aircraft, apply these procedures during quiet hours. Departures with noise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain over the river basin until leaving 3,000 feet or higher befoere proceeding on course. (Note: Examples of similar noise characteristics to the "Twin Beech" include the Lodestar, Travelair and DC -3.) 1. Intersection Departures -- Turbojets only. (1) Controllers shall ensure that intersection takeoffs, for turbojet aircraft, are not initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensitive area; i.e., departing runway 4, 29L, 29R. (2) Controllers may approve Republic (training flights) requests for an intersection departure from the cargo taxiway and runway 11R for their DC -9's. m. Local Control shall instruct all turbojet aircraft departing runway 29L, that will make a left turn, to maintain runway heading. Local control shall issue the assigned heading after the departure is beyond the departure end of 29L and prior to transfer of communications. n. Aircraft departing runway 29L and 29R making right turns shall be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 MSL (1800 when weather is below 1000 -7) before turning to assigned heading. o. Controllers are required to be thoroughly knowledgeable with the provisions of this Order and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it. p. Aircraft departing runway 4 shall be issued headings that avoid overflying the Veterans' Administration Hospital as much as possible. q. Aircraft Engine Runup Procedures will be in accordance with current MAC Field Rules. Any deviations from these rules shall be forwarded to the immediate supervisor for followup. • • 4 'A C'r,.'.. 7., '.r 1 M • -? .1 j. .. , ., . . , . .MSP ATCT 7110.4C 9-30-85 0 #„- . _ . : '. ..-.1311, ,:i.c: ... .'.!. -_::. -:. 1., si 1 1, . - .1: :Id ;..... '"r: ,... ' ' - . ._ --.. 7 . -.• • 4 _...!....) ''C -'._ ,i'l"._. , :.-- '...:.- - PART V —:. ...I y...E....RUNWAY USE PROGRAM - NOISE ABATEMENT -, - ' • 1. PURPOSE. To define noise abatement procedures for Minneapolis International Airport pertaining to all.turbojets and all non-turbojet Group IV and V aircraft. ..„ .. . . . 2. BACKGROUND. The control of air traffic in accordance with aircraft noise abatement programs is secondary only to considerations of safety. Such programs . developed in the public interest may, - in some cases, cause operational . penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan .'. • Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission and the . . Federal Aviation Administration, this informal runway use program was developed ---.' . • in order to reduce the aircraft'noise problem in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. • -,. - ...65.:3:) : . •....,-.- ,--_,_,....., ....., .0 •• 3. ACTION. The issuance of air traffic control instructions relating to noise abatement for all turbojet aircraft and all other Group IV and V, aircraft shall -_, be in accordance with the following procedures: . . - a. Vector arriving aircraft at 4,000 feet MSL or higher until intercepting the glidepath unless a particular situation dictates otherwise. . .•.:,• 1 ,I '..,47.c-::_r -• b. Whenever the normal landing pattern is over Highland or the south ; . 'Minneapolis area, a noise message shall be added to the ATIS . : information. ._ . _.?_. . ?....:17r - , .. ''-': 'c. When the.parallel runways are in use for departing aircraft, the following air carriers: Northwest, Ozark, Continental, Western, American and • (:- ' Midway shall use the south parallel 11R/29L to the extent possible with existing traffic And airport conditions. .-. ,......, - .. - -- , d. As traffic conditions permit and in conjuncionwihprOCedUres -sta'ted. .... , 2. below; comply with the following runway priority giving first priority or noise • relief to departure noise: . t . . . • - . ) . ) v:Takeoff Landing „ ......; - -3...-.1. i . i: -1 1 .• .7 .-- , ,., - j F : . ' • -.- • • • - ' • , : -.. . . ,;,„ ..... , • a 3 :.'... .:--...:•:-'.::- .. - .4.:::' t ---- •-.. ' 1r -- - .-'' * 11L and 11R ---- - --J 29L and 29R ':. :-.'. ::[:- .-......_: 22 4 .. ..-:: ...2..., 6,44.) •:: • ". ..f. .f.1 - _ . t,:1 . 29L and 29R . ' - _.„ 11L and 11R . .....-.r.n, ...:.... .(...E.=. , , • .r.: -!--,r3c,./.•:13'.. 4 ;" . . . , .: .22 •• - .-. '• ".* •/'1, ......e','.1. - ....... . -,-- .. f .4 .. ., ... - Note: Changes in the nature of complaints dictate giving first ; . priority of noise relief to departure nOise. - - ;=*-q.--i -- .:7 .-..--,...-- (.,...-.) . . 'i'(1) Runway conditions - clear and dry (i.e., there is no ice, slush, .....,etc., which might make use of a noise..abatement runway undesirable). ., . . .:.. . .:..,•-:: .. .:: I ,IL:- I. 1. ) . ' - . (2) Wind velocity does nit exceed 15 knots. • -„ . ,.- . - - - - -- . ./.u. •..i :. :,.,_,•,_.. . (3) Any crosswind component does not exceed 90 degrees from either side . . of the center line of the runway in use whenever the wind velocity is five knots or more. - - - - c . . - ._ . -. . . . . .. . . . - . . .. . .r . . . . - . . Page 25 . . .. . ,.• . ,.... . . . , . . . . _ . . . ..•.-..•, : . . . .. ., . , .. . • . . • •-. '7-3-. - • , ... ....• ... , . 7110.4C 9-30-85 -- MSP ATM: Note: Best discretion shall be used in determining traffic conditions., . • e. To accomplish the noise abatement procedures,'cross runway operations are often required. However, it is not required when visibility is one mile or less and/or traffic conditions are determined by the person in charge to be heavy. • f. The preferential runway(s) in use shall be the determining factor in approving or disapproving a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach. g. .Requests for a circling approach, by turbojet aircraft, for training . - shall be denied by the controller. s : . h. All helicopters requesting ASR approaches shall be accommodated in "i accordance with preferential runway procedures. 1. - Mendota Heights/Eagan procedures. t : Departures on 11R and 11L shall: _ : .1I'.. 7 :.J.r.C11 - (a) be issued heading 105 degrees which will insure that aircraft Will remain clear of the Mendota/Eagan noise sensitive areas unless minimum _ .diverging headings are needed to separate successive or parallel departures not on the same route. - - _ . .... _ _ b) diverging separation is in usei:it shall be used based upon the following criteria: . - 1 Runway 11R - a heading between 090 degrees and 105 degrees or a track on or north of the 11R localizer. 2 Runway 11L - a heading between 090 degrees and/or a heading which will track on or north of the 11R localizer.. * .n (c) Proceed on the heading assigned until at least three miles from the departure end of the runway. , . - (d) When requested by the pilot of a Group IV :or V turboprop,_be • issued headings and turned which prohibit flight over these noise sensitive areas (i.e.; 'river departures). -; ' _; • a (2) Aircraft south of runway 29L localizer arriving on . 29L and 29R shall be vectored to at least a 4-mile final. When issuing a visual approach clearance to these arrivals, the pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4-mile (i.e., "cleared visual approach 29L, make at least a 4-mile final"). • j. 'Aircraft departing on runway 22 and making a right turn shall: (1) be instructed to remain on runway heading until'leaving 1500 feet (MSL). • _ • (2) not be issued a heading greater than 350 degrees until past the 11L localizer course. ‘' , • • , Page 26 a 7 , . i„ O . M&P ATCT 7110.4C 5 -12 -86 • Change 1 - k. During quiet hours (11:00 p.m. til 6:00 a.m.) the use of runways 11L for " landings and departures and 29R for departures is prohibited for all types of 'aircraft, unless an emergency situation requires use of these runways. f (1) Due to the noise characteristics'of the BE -18 ( "Twin Beech ") and similar "noisy" types of aircraft, apply these procedures during quiet hours. Departures with noise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain over the river basin until leaving 3,000 feet or higher before proceeding on course. Note: Examples of similar noise characteristics to the "Twin Beech" • include the Lodestar, Travelair and DC -3). 'T" 1. Intersection Departures — Turbojets only (1) Controllers shall ensure that intersection takeoffs, for turbojet aircraft, are not initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensitive area; i.e., departing runway 4, 29L, 29R. _ . -. _ ' (2) Controllers may approve Republic (training flights) requests for an intersection departure from the cargo taxiway and runway 11R for their DC -9's. m. Local Control shall instruct all turbojet aircraft departing runway 29L, that will make a left turn, to maintain runway heading. Local Control shall issue assigned heading after the departure is beyond the departure end of 29L and prior to transfer of communications. .__ - , n. Aircraft departing runway 29L and 29R making right turns shall be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 MSL (2000 when weather (. is below 1000 -7) before turning to assigned heading. • o. Aircraft departing runway 4 shall be issued headings that avoid overflying the Veterans' Administration Hospital as much as possible. p. Aircraft Engine Runup Procedures will be, in accordance with_current MAC l Field Rules. Any deviations from these rules shall be forwarded to the immediate supervisor for follow -up. _ i -). . - .: - q. Controllers are required to be thoroughly knowledgeable with the , - provisions of this Order and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter • •' situations not covered by it. i :.:±..1 -.. c,: :_ _._ __ -.: • • ::.- .... ■-_'i„i:i _.:•...- 7,111:. - .::!.:- _.) .....--!� .•_ ..yam_ _.! • .. ..11 9.J :I..:iis 117i :U i`s)17"z.ii ' f. 1:i.1 •1'97=7 _I(1 5�:: '��} !r : ' (I ' : _—. c': t . ' - Page 27 // -. .. / 5 - ....: lihl c dty of ccigan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.0. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON December 30, 1986 THCODOR WACH ER ouncil THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE 2121 TERESA STREET City Clerk MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 Re: Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Dear Representative Seaberg: Enclosed please find a copy of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune article dated December 29, 1986, pertinent to airport issues. As legislation of this kind is introduced, please be aware that the City of Eagan and, I am sure, other cities in the area would be most interested in providing input to you in its regard. Although not specifically mentioned here, the City is aware that certain legislative interests in the city of Minneapolis are interested in attempting to legislate an end to any recognition of the Eagan - Mendota Heights corridor. The language likely to be used would be a prohibition of any limitations to departure track selection criteria. If passed and enforced, this would have the effect of removing any restriction from the flight paths flown southeast of the airport. Because this area already receives more than half of all operations at the airport, such a move would serve to inundate the Eagan and Mendota Heights areas with noise while providing little, if any, noise abatement gain for South Minneapolis and a marginal operational gain for the airport. If the noise environment for these two communities is to be even remotely tolerable, it is essential that the large amount of traffic concentrated in the area be focused as much as possible toward the middle of the Eagan - Mendota Heights corridor. If you have any questions in this regard or would like additional input on this matter, please contact me. Thank you for your diligence in this regard on behalf of the citizens of Eagan. Sincerely yours, Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights Enclosure JDH /jeh THE LONE OAK TREE.. THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 7 6 ... .. • . . . . ... tvi ta.Q....0 7 DFLers •band.togethera -� ti to take'' on °air ort oise :.- , ) - I a.9 1 By Laurie Blake ' ; Wagenius and.' Peter McLaughlin, Staff Writer , • and Sens. John Brandi and Donna ' • Peterson, all DFLers from Minne- Seven DFL' legislators -r six from apolis, and. Sen.. Mike Freeman, . Minneapolis, one from Richfield — DFL- Richfield. say they're gunning for' the noise from the sky. ' • They plan to introduce legislation • that would: . Their plan is to consolidate their influence in .the 1987 Legislature to . ■ Require the Airports Commission . pass bills regulating airport noise to adopt limits on noise levels if it and the expansion and operation of. fails to adopt its own noise limit the Minneapolis -St. Paul Internation- before the end of the legislative ses- al Airport. Sion. Rep. Ken Nelson, DFL - Minneapolis, 111 Place a moratorium on expansion • one of the seven antinoise crusaders, at the airport, unless it can be ac • said he and the others expect opposi- . complished without adding . to the • tion from the Metropolitan Airports • airplane noise that airport neighbors • Commission, which operates the air- 1 hear homes. . port and has resisted past legislative attempts to change airport opera- $ Require the commission to strut- , Lions. . . . ture landing fees in a way that dis- • ' courages night landings and use of "They're tough•and they will be out the main airport by .small, general against us again, very likely, We're aviation planes., just going to attack them on many .... fronts this time," he said. .. M Prohibit airports commissioners • from seeking jobs with the commis - Nelson is joined in the informal co-. alition by Reps. Wes Skogland, Jean Noise continued on page 11A. , • Noise Continued from page 9A • � . t Y • sion or the airline industry fora year her. after their terms end. • Give the Metropolitan Council au i, ■ Establish geographical districts for thority to review the • commission's: airports . commissioners, who now budget. •%; serve at large. David Dombrowski, chief lobbyist.. • Give the chairman of the commis- for the commission, said he would ' . sion a term of office matching that not comment on the bills until he . • of the governor, who appoints him or studies them. . 7'7 i 00 1- . : ' .--:.: .. a) ......,,,....,...),..„,,,,,•. 7 = C 'al 4 - 0 .0 . 0 sa.. r... .. ...s. . ♦� p • cu 0. o� 1. o ��` tya V c v u ' o0L o.'. a c �� :7c,"ba. t y a s ▪ or m . CCU 00 ; . mo o ° � ° e a+$ • CF'' ✓ o.. o._ c ° c . . °2v'= . 0 TIE L L '-. cC ^ . C C N C .. • m ° �� co U o 3.4'v. � C ° a 0 E IMMO M p - 'p.� 00 w . 0 • , 0 •R =°+ u • '• a v e W T c C C N G - 8 0 .0 =� . 1) y.ao°da0LC 0 '�.�dC .°. O.0 O . y ' °Ua yOO a 1°v -x i . 7 t° c ° E -E-°'73:°--- +`J' � . ct C . C V' > p a 0 'C . 7 7 v1 N o °. a' o' o.6 al 2.0 3 1- oa ar - A u � 0 - o cA Cy tO =a) C O!-' 00 a)C..'. 4. C 4y N C • T..rY _ � A . y ...... > U u y 0 U C O �. a � - p : •n O y u pp 0 6 O E m p vo• o �v = cove co .. a° N 7 E m c o °° v u p 4 .-, (� c 4 p, '� .0 '° u t o0 C p ai C 0 •- ..0 i7 ■�� c p av up0 y °c S .. -,=. a' °my y • .0 Y .1. _ v O --- a~ i y p v°= ° C w >p . 2..2 co 0 4 ti L.. E u O c 0.0 0 , y O C 0 0 • 0. .0 „,43,1)- c. 6 0 O. 0. cd N 0 • Co w'. qp° a l 3^ , y 0 00.0 N 0 c O L o .. • 0 a' o N p a, = ❑ ),,, a N o ai ■o. C co N c = E u 0 y co o v o� ° ai o 1 1.'' 2 co h ° o o I e. . 2 c� a ° ' O .. v 0 m •-• C 2 . 2 2 p y ° F b p i .c.c 'b 8 C Y� TO cu o , O . q p .0. 0 u . N . ' q C in _ ,73.-A p = 0 p o ° a) O 2 .. 9 0 C .0 c u �- . .O a o= ° C .0 O C • 7 O �.. 6EU >aaNNa..N k.v`Ruca'Ca.c2 a2=o'd 3EE•�Ew° 3 .uC 0 v ° • ..00 =$ • C .v. - E °= ° ' ▪ �0. c a' U .p.. C .CI Z • a' O 4,4 U n.l' ..T.. . . ..' T L C T '.4:' .° °da °= °ao k ' ��o ro ��3 o 9 L.0RI .. 0 •v4) "a`'3 u∎-• 4��30 Eo u °u`' • N .. as N ei U p a) 3 o °Yt` w w � o � cragi E o 9. , > c 0 o e C o .4 E N E v. - on E.-- � :' O c0 E= >'„ g F. w N ° a� L. U ' Y Z a' 7.-,., R1 o V E � C ~ O ° 4 R' - U v "IC/ o� ^ ` a a 4) . Z0 4) .. L 4) v : u u c a ' ca •- ....0 a r O p p° t3 q C 1] p � C •^ X 0 3 co C a' A D E N L ° N °� t° v • a E N O p E a' c - •K'r•- o p ` a' ° .0 E L L a . A ° °' 3 _ E C ° o E a' Tcoor. -m °r, uc., C = - � � y 1').0 ' 0. p O u 0 0 E . °° >,,,,.... a' ... a' a' RI U .' z N c a C N p • O N O c y 1-. O E ; t 0 ` = a V c.n •n o aytiG ^ o o°o ,. 2 c o'. N .3: oo... . 0."e'u`.' ��'- c0 a .... > u N .n O C U C C :4 p p �. 0 1- as . N I'd a' C . v C :... q N .2.), v i N>,,,„...=,..0, -0.4-00.-0 O .. 0 0 0 C 7 0 y 0 _,-,, p N ,.. O ),...0 t o • �.., O O m ct7 O.0 =c[- 1.1.Y' 3o0a u..uvua..0 .:maea .. i vy! • .Oy Ny � � v O ON - 1 C .°.f«: . 0 i 1 G N U < C��b . 0 � p -qb 7 � .. • E C a C O N , co i0 . co •- C 6 O 0 a .-. c0 C.0 , � ' • N a v y ° cco .. 0 • : E --.0 o ^o u� ° � ` 4) " 00. :� �� 3cH� E °p` u� a �° 'o ` u0 omo o N L x v°9 w c • O a)0 E ° ° c °O dvE o �.-.0 3o ' pO6 u' a' �� a 43 a'� u v tg c a . C o .0 > m O p .° N p . . _ ° oo dam a C. 0 0 , 0E t j E E 1 a3 p oot � c ..... c. C ° ' w U °o cu c p� 0. o E °o° E '^ F+ 0 41 c o4; >. . 04) � 0 p L.F. ,�, - °v"0EO�y N . .t .,C N T � ��oCO O C.' O __. � i: OY. • ° p C�p• • ,0„,.c "g'co c o ' °p 0. o .0-- --• o c O C '° E.. 0 > . , am E3 ouV = a m >.E "6 .0 ---• c .C.a °'GCU ,'a;m °xo - E > p �oi a- ° ` o a > = v3n`cc � aaso �y CI cn' .4 a) U 3 .°, Q .2 a•° -:w:: .7'1-1 x io y« p ° a:. Q 2 ° ° ae =°.. °7aaA' '7 yq . a 052r. a a � •.' ...T ,: : aa -- ,. - •„ . " O 0 .c ' a O . a 0 _ O 4) y W 5. : . . Nw . ... . v ^ � oD C ••. ° C s.. " • gu >) C.) °' 1....) N= 6 O 4, .-. .0 Q O - a . (/ ' V O ` G 2 0 2 2 C 5 . W F a1 u 41 V 4) ..9. � O> C° a w R: a ej .. o .0 .0 0.0 a« � a �/, 0 i' 0 •� .. ' G,. a s V a) 5 O xi as a, 0 a, O O u H a U l-. .o .0 0 4.. .. ... w o > 0 - .. u °b w « u - Ji a. v ,xo c o d M = ° a �a N. oc�ac 1.1 •••• OP. is G t. o o ~e. ^ . g . ..o • -• 0V) c o0 c y 'a al a `''a o aa),..8 at... a a 1° a` • .e aa, flhL tri oo poo a oo.a0 °�aa a ' 2 vat - ' E+ . a _ v : , i u Y a u ,.. . $ ...co. 0 c :. 0 0 0E 4, .0 �. q . C y c 0 , , a, 00 co ° � usi e ° `oD ,p v .0 4 Q >_ a E v. . _. U °m a aO a °a -y .. 0 - ._ 0 °o . 3 N d a O ~ 44) 7 .:'. N C •'" � d O d O 2 0 V ° a ° a N 01) V W F P G III SAM ::.3 � v, a o a C E . . : `,� Q Q v '► >... a ai m a s° a a • •° a s a o. -- �, . C . ._. 0 .., r . , 0 .0 ` . . ,i* . o o .0 :� . a •c :. ►., p o c '-. 0 / e°'. ' oo � a � ` a" @ � 5.- u y' 4 O o ° = • o y ' 3 . ° a ) +� a $ a 0 .°�.. Q �o J� � ° ''- r+ 4a m'^ a 3 4 0 v a, :e$f °w • • 3 .s a a, c:...304) yy �. .. a a a a, p a «. id. CO C O O • - r .r 0 a " e y t7 O . gy p -a . ' O C. _ O G a ... gy z .4 �ij al « � .a u j� . "W p Q p r...:r . 0 . -. 0... . M ° acs � ; 3�4 0 _ " . a a , wN 'oam"�C- 3 2.J.. • Nam a . a b ,, �° ° a, , a - E E U , a ° ' « � ° _ �" C �.', ur � ' ' .: . �" a 0.'O ° ', m > `4 W - co ,. a a. 6 a , a 41 C U •p « ti, i a n 0 . . ° H O ° a a 0 ° Ck ... $ . P. c a a < � _ CD a c m O co q G N ' Q a 9 „ o: O a•. B > o , ...1 - a • w O W F O I... 0 . N O .7 •. . � 'O �+ +-' F.... 'O 4D ` � O O %."..r. O .•^ O �� ,. .a E a O _ 4) a .. q c « Isar �+. O a m ,�. 0 .a. o . C V E h . O C . 4 u a "' a ,, - a C yr itv�cF o u o o, aom L ig °°� ' 0 o °� -.0 a k a a w ao _om m u= a p . C C ° a o l O U .0 a C a U 0 a '_~N r) O W G f- 2 Y ' co a 0 O a o , mo d . O . $ , O C, �a A .4 am m12.aas :aau =I - o 14 a� o 'mix ,..a o ,� 0 m , - ,.12i 0 CIO = ,n 2• u E a - a « �". *•` ` � �' a,[a te ,. . o. a h.. 7- °y' = `�`0e a ' . 0 °4' b CIS � .w. yy , v � 7 q �� > �� 1 o. = o o _ 0 4, u, >, ... >, o k, v a, oc as 2 co 0 H ~ . o - a pp « .0 . e b ,° O 0 - P. l :° . � . "" 0 t; IL) 0a .0 i m o � u,, r o r v� '.8 y CD •N 8u o ' a.„. T >O o v . ^ o -o acl c� S .15 4. 1111.10 :1 C � m o _ I o -v S _ , y ! a� • � cd,, a 1421.0 ty) , , 'a 0.) 2 , aao4,4,` [ -. • C u • ■• _->'.o ° ate • : 0173 - 1 O �. y. tits oe c° o "v a a 0 0 -u; 0 m0 a ~~ b d u; :a 2 o . 0 . F a F « w „0ab ^ aa � ` da.�.. r • Los . . � ° � 2 0 E `h)'a get a A a ° >,4 ate _ CO . - W' ,'. °a T d 4".a. O : w 0 N.b'. 0 O CU '� t a�oo � 7 m �a. m a ° m j o `� y Q a -. u oo v .t 'a Z o a 03 ' W. 4f� ti C C ..rte •0 C 7T METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL IIP ROSIER USER REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE Airborne Express Doug Casserly District Operations Manager Airborne Express P.O. Box 1714 MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) Appt. Date: 3 -14 -86 Eastern Airlines, Inc. Jose Ponce James G. Brock Manager, Sales and Service Sales Manager Eastern Airlines, Inc. Eastern Airlines, Inc. MSP International Airport MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -5674 (612) 726 -5674 Appt. Date: 1 -27 -86 Appt. Date: 4 -13 -79 Midway Airlines, Inc. Chuck Luellen Manager Midway Airlines, Inc. Suite 338 MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -5898 Appt. Date: Northwest Airlines Benjamin G. Griggs, Jr. Captain Robert Cavill Executive Vice President Director Flight Standards Operations Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines MSP International Airport MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -2913 (612) 726 -2327 Appt. Date: 7 -20 -81 Appt. Date: 7 -7 -77 • Stewart G. Lee Captain Charles Hanebuth Senior Director Instructor /Check Pilot Regulatory Standards Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines MSP International Airport MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 884 -9898 (612) 726 -2907 (B) Appt. Date: 3 -25 -85 Appt. Date: 10 -22 -86 gd USER REPRIMENTATION (Continued) Northwest Airlines Robert M. Wylie Director Flt. Regulations Northwest Airlines MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -7722 (B) Appt. Date: 10 -22 -86 TWA, Inc. Don Morrison Ron Goettsch Vice President Public Affairs Station Manager TWA, Inc. TWA, Inc. P.O. Box 10007, Lambert Field MSP International Airport St. Louis, MO 63145 St. Paul, MN 55111 (314) 895 -6600 (612) 726 -5647 Appt. Date: 11 -19 -86 Appt. Date: 11 -19 -86 United Airlines Inc. John Sorenson Jack Spalding Reg. Adm. Airport Affairs Station Operations Manager United Airlines, Inc. United Airlines, Inc. P.O. Box 66100 MSP International Airport Chicago, IL 60666 St. Paul, MN 55111 (312) 952 -5337 (612) 726 -5084 Appt. Date: 3 -4 -82 Appt. Date: 11 -1 -82 USAir, Inc. Joe Maschinot Lee Nocon Customer Service Manager USAir, Inc. USAir, Inc. MSP International Airport MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -5374 (612) 726 -5374 Appt. Date: 1 -1 -87 Appt. Date: 1 -1 -87 Western Airlines, Inc. Rich Kidwell David Reveling City Manager District Sales Manager Western Airlines, Inc. Western Airlines, Inc. MSP International Airport MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 726 -4784 (612) 726 -4784 Appt. Date: 6 -1 -81 Appt. Date: 12 -5 -84 Minnesota Business Ron Glaub Robert Gunn Aircraft 7209 12th Avenue South 4625 West 98th Street Association (MBAA) Richfield, MN 55423 Bloomington, MN 55437 (612) 869 -4531 (H) (612) 835 -5264 (H) (612) 725 -3341 (B) (612) 726 -9170 (B) Appt. Date: 4 -22 -82 Appt. Date: 12 -10 -86 • USER REFRESENTATIVES (Continued) Air Line Pilots Captain Niel B. Atkinson Captain James McLaughlin Association (ALPA) 3001 Overlook Drive 56 Birnamwood Drive Bloomington, MN 55431 Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 884 -1204 (H) (612) 890 -9339 (H) Appt. Date: 3 -28 -77 Appt. Date: 3 -28 -77 Metropolitan Airports Jeff Hamiel Nigel Finney Commission (MAC) Executive Director Deputy Executive Director MAC Operations 6040 28th Avenue South MAC Minneapolis, MN 55450 6040 28th Avenue South (612) 726 -1892 Minneapolis, MN 55450 Appt. Date: 1 -11 -82 (612) 726 -1892 Appt. Date: 1 -22 -86 Greater Minneapolis Jerry Norton Art Tames Chamber of Commerce 8601 Indian Blvd. 2409 Oakland Drive Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 870 -2489 (612) 435 -5406 Appt. Date: 1 -24 -86 Appt. Date: 1 -24 -86 (as alternate) St. Paul Area David Woodrow George Sanborn * Chamber of Commerce 3M Company President Aviation Department, Bldg. 670 Sanborn Aviation 690 Bayfield Street St. Paul Downtown Airport St. Paul, MN 55107 St. Paul, MN 55107 (612) 778 -5800 (612) 225 -7857 Appt. Date: 8 -7 -81 Appt. Date: Y01 PUBLIC REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE City of Minneapolis James B. Serrin Dennis Schulstad 4422 Dupont Avenue South 307 City Hall Minneapolis, mN 55409 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 824 -2285 (H) (612) 348 -2212 (B) (612) 373 -4685 (B) Exp. Date: Exp. Date: John Richter Steve J. Cramer 5905 Golden Valley Road 307 City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55422 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 546 -3314 (B) (612) 348 -2211 (B) Exp Date: Exp. Date: Walter H. Rockenstein, II Kristin N. Clinton 643 E. 57th Street 137 West 45th Street Minneapolis, MN 55430 Minneapolis, MN 55409 (612) 822 -5983 (H) (612) 824 -7128 (612) 341 -1605 (B) Exp. Date: Exp. Date: Roylene A. Champeaux 5745 20th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 (612) Exp. Date: 6 -30 -87 City of St. Paul C. Scott Bunin Charles R. Steffel 1658 Randolph Avenue 291 South Syndicate St. Paul, MN 55105 St. Paul, MN 55105 (612) 698 -7610 (H) (612) 699 -8298 (H) (612) 893 -9666 (B) (612) 699 -8298 (B) Exp. Date: 8 -16 -87 Exp. Date: 8 -16 -87 Lloyd Wickstrom 2209 Hartford Avenue St. Paul, MN 55116 (612) 699 -9457 (H) Exp. Date: 8 -16 -87 Mark DiPietro 815 Fairview Avenue South St. Paul, MN 55116 (612) 698 -3081 (H) (612) 298 -1055 (B) Exp. Date: 8 -16 -87 425 PUBLIC REIPRESEMATION (Continued) City of Richfield Donald Priebe John Hamilton 7225 Bloomington Avenue 7220 Harriet Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 869 -8186 (H) Exp. Date: 1 -4 -87 Exp. Date: 1 -4 -87 Edwina Garcia James Prosser 6732 18th Avenue City Manager Richfield, MN 55423 6700 Portland Avenue (612) 861 -6140 Richfield, MN 55423 Exp. Date: 1 -4 -87 (612) 869 -7521 Exp. Date: 1 -4 -87 City of Bloomington Robert Mood John G. Pidgeon Manager - Building & Inspection City Manager City of Bloomington City of Bloomington 2215 W. Old Shakopee Road 2215 W. Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 881 -5811 (B) (612) 881 -5811 (B) Exp. Date: 1 -5 -87 Exp. Date: 1 -5 -87 Mark Mahon Roger Blessum 8435 Portland Avenue South 10001 Abbott Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55420 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 881 -1218 (H) (612) 641 -7518 (B) Exp. Date: 1 -5 -87 Exp. Date: 1 -5 -87 City of Mendota Heights Bernard P. Friel Larry Shaughnessy, Jr. 750 Mohican Lane 27 Dorset Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (612) 454 -3655 (H) (612) 227 -6691 (B) (612) 293 -3816 (B) Exp. Date: 7 -20 -87 Exp. Date: 7 -20 -87 City of Eagan Thomas F. Baker W. Dustin Mirick 1573 Lone Oak Road 3784 South Hills Court Eagan, MN 55121 Eagan, MN 55123 (612) 454 -2155 (H) (612) 452 -2574 (612) 641 -3736 (8) Exp. Date: 1 -31 -87 Exp. Date: 1 -31 -87 City of Burnsville Michael Brucciani Juan Rivas 1400 Bluebill Bay 2901 Keating Circle Burnsville, MN 55337 Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 435 -8259 (H) (612) 894 -1906 (H) (612) 853 -6504 (B) Exp. Date: 3 -1 -89 Exp. Date: 3 -1 -89 PUBLIC REPRESENTATION (Continued) Terry O'Brien 10939 Territorial Drive Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 894 -2079 (H) (612) 835 -1515 Exp. Date: 3 -1 -89 Steven Conlin 11015 Schoolcraft Road Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 894 -7693 (H) Exp. Date: 3 -1 -89 City of Inver Grove Robert Pollock Jean Melin Heights 1785 96th Street East 9650 Arnold Avenue Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075 Inver Grove Hts., MN 55075 (612) 450 -9178 Exp. Date: Exp. Date: ASSOCIATE MEMBERS City of St. Louis Park Paul Cain Lenore Brill 8413 Virginia Circle South 2230 Flagg Avenue south St. Louis Park, MN 55426 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (612) 399 -4000 (B) (612) 546 -1985 (S75 MASAC ADVISORS REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE Air Transport Jerome F. Mann, Director Richard White Association (ATA) 1765 Commerce Dr., Suite 105 1765 Commerce Drive Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Suite 105 (312) 439 -0360 Elk Grove Village,IL 60007 Federal Aviation Doug Powers Bob Botcher Administration ( FAA) Air Traffic Manager Asst. Air Traffic Manager MSP Control Tower MSP Control Tower 6311 34th Avenue South 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Minneapolis, MN 55450 (612) 726 -9255 (B) (612) 726 -9255 (B) Minnesota Air National LTC John P. Silliman LTC Keith F. Illies Guard 133rd Tactical Airlift Wing 133rd Tac Airlift Wing MSP International Airport MSP International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111 St. Paul, MN 55111 (612) 725 -5633 (B) (612) 725 -5682 (B) U.S. Supplemental Robert A. Mix Carriers Regional Director of NACA Facilities & Service Corp. O'Hare International Airport P.O. Box 66250 Chicago, IL 60666 U.S. Air Force Reserve Colonel Jerry Boone Major Dennis E. Stephens USAFR Commander Operations & Training 934th TAG Officer Minneapolis, MN 55450 96th TAS (612) 725 -5333 (B) Minneapolis, MN 55450 (612) 725 -5556 (B) Metropolitan Airports Virginia Johnson Jan Del Calzo Commission (MAC) Commissioner Commissioner 140 Canabury Court 4844 Aldrich Avenue South St. Paul, MN 55117 Minneapolis, MN 55409 (612) 736 -1331 (B) (612) 827 -4240 (H) MASAC Staff Steven J. Vecchi Joan Vandersloot Technical Advisor Secretary Metropolitan Airports Commission MAC 6040 28th Avenue South 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Minneapolis, MN 55450 (612) 726 -1892 (B) (612) 726 -1892 (B) g(49' BY -LAWS OF METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: ARTICLE I Corporate Powers The corporate powers, business and property of the corporation shall be vested in and exercised, conducted and controlled by the membership of the corporation through the USER REPRESENTATIVES and PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES, all as hereinafter provided, with exercise of said powers by the membership and through its corporate officers and the Executive Committee pursuant to the terms hereof. ARTICLE II Membership (1) The council membership, as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation, shall consist of the officially designated representatives or, in the absence of designated representatives, the alternate representatives, with authority to act upon all matters within the purview of the corporation's Articles of Incorporation and By -laws. (2) Upon appointment of the officially designated representatives by the governing board or executive head of agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies in respect to USER represen- tations, and by the governmental units in respect to PUBLIC representation, the appointing authority shall file in the office of the corporation a notice of the appointment of such designated representatives, setting forth their names and mailing address. Thereupon, representation on the council will be confirmed by issuance of a certificate of membership to each such representative and /or alternate representative. (3) Representatives and alternate representatives shall be appointed to serve for two (2) year terms and until their successor is appointed. Vacancy, arising by reason of death, resignation, disability to act for the member by whom appointed, or for any other reason, shall be filled by the appointing authority for a new two (2) year term com- mencing with the date of appointment of such successor representative. (4) The composition of the Council representation subject to later amend- ment of these By -laws is as follows: USER REPRESENTATION 8 Representatives from the scheduled certified airlines using the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport 1 Representative from the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association (MBAR) 1 Representative from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) 1 Representative from the Minneapolis /St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) 1 Representative from the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce 1 Representative from the Greater Minneapolis Area Chamber of Commerce 1 Representative from the Air Express /Overnight Express Air Carriers PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 4 Representatives from the City of Minneapolis 3 Representatives from the City of St. Paul 2 Representatives from the City of Richfield 2 Representatives from the City of Bloomington 1 Representative from the City of Mendota Heights 1 Representative from the City of Eagan 1 Representative from the City of Burnsville 2 Changes in the composition of the Council or in the user and /or public repre- sentation thereon, through amendment of the Articles of Incorporation and /or the By -laws, shall be entertained to permit active participation of additional members in the USER or PUBLIC categories or as may be required to reflect material changes in the population or directly effected governmental units or change in the impact on governmental units by reason of changed flight patterns. (5) In addition to the designated USER and PUBLIC representatives and their appointed alternates, non - voting membership to the MASAC should include the following two (2) categories: A. MASAC ADVISOR - officially recognized organization or agency that directly deals with aircraft noise abatement programs to include: Air Transport Association of America (ATA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Minnesota Air National Guard, U.S. Supplemental Carriers, U.S. Air Force Reserve, a Commissioner from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and any other organiza- tion or agency with majority approval by the Council. I Note: New language - changed March, 1986. B. MASAC ASSOCIATE 1. Associate Public Member - Representatives appointed by the governmental units not immediately surrounding the airport but within a five (5) mile radius of the airport and affected by operations to, at and from the airport. 2. Associate User Member - Representatives of scheduled airlines serving the airport with jet aircraft who are not USER representatives. -;)<, 3. Associate Individual Member - Person(s) with a minimum of five (5) years experience serving on MASAC who have retained an active interest in an advisory capacity. Associate Individual Members are recommended by the Executive Committee and approved by majority vote of the Council. ARTICLE III Powers and Duties of Membership Subject to the voting provisions herein set forth, the membership shall have the following powers and duties: (1) To appoint and remove at pleasure all officers, agents and employees of this corporation, other than representatives; to prescribe such duties for them as may not be inconsistent with the law, the Articles of Incorporation or these By -laws; to fix their compensation; and to require from them security for faithful service. (2) To conduct, manage and control the affairs and activities of the corporation, relating to the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport - Wold Chamberlain Field, and as more fully set out in the corporation's Articles of Incorporation, and to make such recommen- dations therefor, not inconsistent with the law, the Articles of Incorporation or these By -laws, as may deem best. (3) To fix, from time to time the office of this corporation; to adopt, make and use a corporate seal; to prescribe the form of certificate of membership; and to alter the forms of such seal and certificate from time to time, as they may deem best, except as otherwise provided in these By -laws. (4) Consistent with the Articles of Incorporation, to admit members to this corporation by issuing or causing to be issued, at any time and from time to time, certificates of membership. (70 (5) To determine and establish, and from time to time to propose and revise budgets covering the fiscal operation of the corporation in cooperation with the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Minneapolis /St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission shall provide the monies necessary for the fiscal operation of the corporation as required pursuant to such budgets, and its concurrence through the vote of its designated representative shall be required on any action establishing or revising the monies required to be furnished by it to the corporation to finance its operations. (6) To borrow money and incur indebtedness for the purposes of this corporation; and to cause to be executed and delivered therefore, in the corporate name, promissory notes and other evidences of indebted- ness. (7) Generally to do and perform every act and thing whatsoever that may pertain to their function as representatives; and to exercise all powers and perform all acts which this corporation can legally exercise and perform under its Articles. ARTICLE IV Voting Rights of Membership (1) At all meetings of the council attendance by tvui (4) five (5) USER 1 representatives and apAL (4) five (5) PUBLIC representatives shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business, provided that no action relating to the establishment of budget or which will result in a change in the budget shall be taken unless there are in attendance and voting thereon at least LhiiLe is (13) fourteen (14) representatives. Note: New language - changed March, 1986. Cirl (2) There shall be equal representation of USER and PUBLIC membership in the corporation, and to that end, there being an equal number of USER and PUBLIC representatives, for purposes of vote on all matters requiring a vote of the Council, each representative, both USER and PUBLIC, shall have one (1) vote, which in the absence of a representative may be by his or her duly designated alternate representative. (3) These By -laws may be amended or altered by the vote of a majority of the membership present at any meeting, provided that notice of such proposed amendments shall have been given ten (10) days prior to a general membership meeting. (2) The executive committee may formulate a personnel policy manual which shall be formalized, presented and ratified by the Council as a whole. The personnel policy manual may be introduced and amended by majority action of the membership at any regular meeting and may be reviewed if necessary at least once a year. (3) The executive committee shall meet by direction of the Council membership or at the call of the Chairperson or at the call of any two (2) members of the executive committee. (4) The executive committee shall not be a policy making body, but shall address itself solely to administrative and fiscal matters or such other duties as the Council shall specify. ARTICLE VI Chairperson of the Council The representatives shall by majority vote of the total representation, elect from amongst the constituency of the Council a Chairperson who shall serve for a two (2) year term or until his /her presentation on the Council terminates, whichever occurs first; and until his /her successor is elected. The Chairperson initially elected shall be from amongst the PUBLIC representatives on the Council. The powers and duties of the Chairperson are as follows: (1) To preside at all meetings of the Council and its executive committee. (2) To call meetings of the Council other than regular meetings of the Council provided for herein, which meetings will be called as he /she deems necessary or upon request in writing by any three (3) USER or by any three (3) PUBLIC representatives. (3) To sign as Chairperson of this corporation, all deeds, conveyances, mortgages, leases, contracts, obligations, certificates and other papers and instruments in writing that may require such signature, unless the membership shall otherwise direct, and except as otherwise provided herein; and to perform such other duties and tasks as these By -laws or as the membership shall from time to time prescribe. ARTICLE VII Vice - Chairperson To serve in the absence or during disability of the Chairperson, the represen- tatives on the Council may be majority vote of those in attendance at any regular or special meeting, elect a 1st and 2nd Vice - Chairperson, who shall preside at meetings of the Council, with the Chairperson's power to call meetings and who shall perform the duties and exercise the powers of the absent or disabled Chairperson. C1:5 ARTICLE VIII Technical Advisor The membership of the Council may appoint a Technical Advisor who shall be a well qualified individual meeting as nearly as possible the specifications for the job established by the Council and enunciated under the personnel policy manual, who shall receive such pay as the Council determines within budget limitations. He /she shall serve at the pleasure of the Council as the chief administrative office of the Council and he /she shall have such duties and shall exercise such authority as the membership directs, including the following: (1) To prepare the agenda for meetings of the Council which shall in any event include any items for consideration proposed to him /her in writing by any USER or PUBLIC representative. (2) To keep a full and complete record of the proceedings of the Council and of the meetings of the members, to keep the seal, books and papers of this corporation, and to affix the seal to all instruments executived by the Chairperson or, by direction of the membership, to all instruments that may reasonably require it. (3) To maintain an up -to -date roster of Council membership and of the representatives of each member agency, corporation, association, governmental body and unit including the date of appointment and time of service of each such representative. He /she shall inform each member as to the termination of the term of service of each representative, no less than thirty (30) days prior to such termination. (4) To sign, in conjunction with the Chairperson or, in the absence of the Chairperson, in conjunction with one of the Vice - Chairpersons, all certificates of membership, drafts, and other documents, unless the Council shall otherwise direct, and except as otherwise provided herein. 9 (5) To make service and publication of all notices that may be necessary or proper, without command or direction from anyone. In the case of absence, inability, refusal or neglect of the Technical Advisor or the Council's Designee to make service or publication of any notice then such notice may be signed, served and published by the Chairperson or, in his /her absence, by any Vice - Chairperson, or by any person thereunto authorized by any of them or by the Council. (6) To receive any monies belonging to, or paid into, this corporation and to receipt for the same, and to deposit so much thereof as may not be needed for current expenses or uses with such depositories as the Council may designate. (7) To maintain full and complete account of all financial transactions of the corporation, in form and content as prescribed by the personnel policies manual. (8) To be administratively in control of the Noise Abatement Office which shall be the administrative office of the Council, employing and in charge of subordinate employees within said office as required and at and from said office to receive, process and investigate complaints and thereat and therefrom to be in administrative control of the operations of the Council under the cor- poration's Articles and these By -laws. ARTICLE IX Negotiable Instruments Checks and other negotiable instruments executed by this corporation shall be signed by the following: Chairperson of the Council, or in his /her absence any Vice - Chairperson, and the Technical Advisor or the Council's Designee or any two (2) representatives designated by resolution of the Council. - y ARTICLE X Technical Studies (1) The Council of its own determination or at the request of the Technical Advisor or the Council's Designee but within budgetary limitations, may retain the services of independent technical experts and consultants as deemed necessary in the performance of its corporate functions. (2) In aid of the corporation's corporate purpose, the Council may ask agencies, corporations, association, governmental bodies, to make available to the corporation, technical advice, and the services of their technical personnel reasonably required for the purpose of studies instituted by the Council. (3) Studies and reports of technical personnel retained by the Council for such purpose shall be available to the Council in aid of its performance of its corporate functions but shall not constitute studies or reports of the Council unless duly adopted by it. (4) Unless and until the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Agency having jurisdiction over aircraft flight control at the airport and over certification of aircraft, becomes a member of the corporation and designates its representative to the Council, the Council shall seek and invite its participation as an observer and in an advisory capacity. ARTICLE XI Council Meetings (1) The Council shall determine when its regular meetings shall occur which shall at least be on a quarterly basis. If any regular meeting day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then the meeting shall occur on the next business day thereafter. Special meetings of the Council shall be held on call as heretofore provided. (2) The Technical Advisor or the Council's Designee shall mail notice of general or special meetings of the Council as by law required prior thereto to each representative at his /her mailing address currently on file with the corporation. Such notice shall set forth the agenda of the meetings and no matters requiring Council action may be considered which are not on the agenda unless the Council, by majority vote of representatives in attendance elects to consider such matters. (3) All meetings shall be held at the offices of the Council or at such other place or places as from time to time the Council by majority vote of representation in attendance at a meeting determines. The place of meeting or alternative place of meeting shall be set forth in notices of meeting. " ; f_- N 4/86 C? 7 MEMO TO: ALL AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: JANUARY 9, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING — JANUARY 14, 1987 Please take notice of the next scheduled Airport Noise Committee meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. The meeting will be in the Municipal Center Conference Rooms A & B. Packet materials will be forwarded to you on Monday, January 12, 1987. • A inistrative Assistant JDH /j eh